PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY ENDOWMENTS (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

Joint Absentee Committees (Powers)

Mr. McNeil: asked the Minister of Labour if he will empower joint absentee committees to have access to the attendance and timekeeping records of the staff as well as the workers and, where necessary, to initiate proceedings against the staff as well as against the workers.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): These committees do not initiate proceedings; they report on cases referred to them. Cases affecting staff could not be so referred unless the scope of the committee covered them and this is a matter for joint agreement with which I could not interfere without impairing the usefulness of the machinery.

Mr. McNeil: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that this separation of the staff and workers is causing dissatisfaction?

Mr. Bevin: There is no difference in treatment when cases are reported. I cannot tackle the problem of putting staff and production workers on one Committee.

Unemployment (Slihgtly Disabled Persons)

Mr. Mack: asked the Minister of Labour what is the number of wholly unemployed persons signing the live register at employment exchanges who are con-

sidered unemployable by reason of slight disability; whether he will take steps to have such persons medically examined and, if then found employable, excuse them attending exchanges more than once per week.

Mr. Bevin: No special statistics are kept of unemployed persons with slight disabilities. Such persons are not regarded as unemployable and they can usually be placed in suitable employment without medical examination. In view of the shortage of man-power, it is important that anyone who is capable of taking work should be available for early submission to any suitable vacancy and my hon. Friend will appreciate that there would be risk of delay in placing persons with slight disabilities if they were required to attend at their Employment Exchange on only one day a week.

Mr. Mack: Would the Minister not agree that they ought not to attend more frequently than once a week even if the disability is only of a slight character?

Mr. Bevin: No, I cannot agree with that because if the man with a slight disability attends only once a week, he may miss being submitted for a job. I think that attendance twice a week by a man who is not employed is not unreasonable.

Elderly Women

Captain Plugge: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is still calling up older women for war work; and whether, since the start of the year, any women have been discharged from factories hitherto manufacturing war material no longer needed.

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. I am calling upon older women in districts where they are needed. The women released as a result of reduced production of certain munitions are in general needed for transfer to other vital war work.

Captain Plugge: In such cases of release, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will give preference to elderly ladies?

Viscountess Astor: Is the right hon. Gentleman ascertaining that women who left the country at the beginning of the war, and have since returned home, are all being put into jobs? It is very important.

Mr. Bevin: That is another question of which I should like notice. The question of release depends where the release takes place, and on the demand in that particular area.

Essential Work Order (Appeals)

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Minister of Labour if he will issue instructions that the findings of local appeals boards on appeals arising out of the Essential Work Order are communicated to all parties concerned in the case.

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. The local appeal boards make recommendations to the National Service officer; they do not give decisions. Under the Order the National Service officer has to consider the recommendation and make a decision. He communicates his decision to the parties and, in my view, nothing more is necessary or indeed desirable.

Mr. Lawson: May I ask my right hon. Friend if the National Service officer communicates his decision to the appeal board?

Mr. Bevin: If the appeal is against a decision of the National Service officer, then, obviously, knowledge of that appeal is before the board.

Mr. Lawson: If a National Service officer does not carry out a recommendation made by a board, does, he tell the appeal board that he has not carried it out?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. Under the Orders I am responsible. He acts on my behalf and, if there is any question arising on that decision, it is for me to consider it.

Mr. Bowles: What happens when the recommendation is not carried out?

Mr. Bevin: That is another question.

Mr. Silverman: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether, when the appeal of a worker succeeds, and when, nevertheless, the National Service officer refuses to act on the advice of the appeal board, it is communicated to the worker that his appeal has in fact succeeded but that the National Service officer does not act on it?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. Many questions arise on these appeal boards, and the National Service officer, acting on my behalf, is responsible. If they care to appeal against him, they can.

Mr. Silverman: Whilst fully appreciating that the appeal boards are only advisory, may I ask would it not be as well to let the man know that the appeal board decided in his favour, but that the original decision stood, for other reasons?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir, but in many cases when the appeal has been the other way, I have been asked to review it. It is not all one-sided, and the present practice has on the whole given general satisfaction.

Dance Band Musicians

Mr. Edgar Granville: asked the Minister of Labour under what regulations dance band musicians of military age are given the opportunity of accepting regular employment in orchestras.

Mr. Bevin: There are no special regulations affecting the employment of musicians in orchestras or dance bands. As in the case of all other men of military age, applications for deferment or postponement of calling-up on the ground of hardship can be made in respect of such men.

Mr. Granville: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Members of Parliament are receiving complaints from all over the country about able-bodied musicians who are playing regularly in civilian orchestras? As my right hon. Friend has become the Ministerial bulldozer, will he deal with the dance band racket? Does he know about it?

Mr. Buchanan: Without going into the merits of this question may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will see that, even though they are musicians, they get the law as applied to all conditions of hardship?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, and without bulldozing.

Commander Locker-Lampson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, since the number of good musicians in this country is so few, we ought not to encourage them and march to music?

Building Operatives

Mr. Shephard: asked the Minister of Labour the number of building operatives now unemployed.

Mr. Bevin: I am writing to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Shephard: Why may we not have this information now?

Mr. Bevin: I have not got it.

National Service Officer's Decision (Coventry)

Mr. Bowles: asked the Minister of Labour what action he proposes to take against Messrs. Humber, Ltd., of Coventry, for refusing to carry out the decision of the National Service officer, which was upheld on appeal, that Mr. Sam Hallett should not be discharged and also for refusing to return to him his insurance cards thereby preventing him from obtaining Unemployment Insurance Benefit.

Mr. Bevin: I am having inquiries made and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Bowles: I am glad to hear that, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a month ago now since the decision of the National Service officer was overruled by the Appeal Board, and that this man is unable to get his insurance cards or to get a job? Surely the matter ought to be looked into without delay?

Mr. Bevin: I saw my hon. Friend's Question for the first time yesterday and ordered an immediate inquiry into the matter.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the best information he could give to this House would be that the employers were in goal?

Women Social Workers (Training).

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the increasing demands being made on fully-trained social workers, he is giving the same facilities for qualifying in the various branches to girls indicating their desire for training as are now being given to applicants desirous of training as teachers.

Mr. Bevin: The arrangements for allowing women to train for teaching and for approved forms of social service are very nearly identical.

Miss Ward: Is it not true that special facilities have now been granted for the training of teachers? Can such facilities be extended to those who are training for social work?

Mr. Bevin: The hon. Lady will appreciate that the difficulty in regard to teaching at the present time is a very special one, because of the Bill now going through Parliament, the preparations

for the extension of the school-leaving age, and other such matters. But so far as the training of social workers is concerned the procedure is almost identical.

Oral Answers to Questions — I.L.O. CONFERENCE (DECISIONS)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Minister of Labour whether the recommendation made by Sir Frederick Leggett, at the Dependent Territories Committee of the International Labour Conference, that the Committee should confine its recommendations to general principles until the Governments represented had assembled more facts correctly represents the view of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Bevin: I understand that my hon. Friend is referring to some remarks stated to have been made by Sir Frederick Leggett in the course of discussion. I do not know precisely what was said or in what context the remarks were made but I may say generally that His Majesty's Government is desirous of having an opportunity to consider resolutions based on general principles before they are turned into recommendations or conventions, so that when a decision is arrived at it can be followed, so far as this country is concerned, by effective action.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES, FAR EAST (DEMOBILISATION)

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give an assurance that in the plans for demobilisation special safeguards will be inserted to protect the employment interests of members of His Majesty's Forces who may be detained in the Far Eastern theatre of war such as India, Burma, China and the Pacific Waters.

Mr. Bevin: This consideration will not be overlooked. As regards those members of the Forces who wish to return to their former employment, their interests are safeguarded, as my hon. Friend will be aware, by the provisions of the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, however long their release may be delayed for military reasons.

Miss Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he will bear in mind only reinstatement under Statute, but giving the men detained abroad after the European


war, equal chances of getting the pick of the jobs which are available for those returning to this country?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot go into the whole scheme of the Prime Minister's demobilisation proposals in answer to a Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Smokeless Coal Grates

Captain Plugge: asked the Minister of Health what steps are being taken to interest local authorities in the desirability of providing in their post-war houses coal burning grates which will be, as far as possible, smokeless; and to what extent they have been informed of the British Coal Utilisation Research Council in this field.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): I am arranging, in conjunction with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power and my noble Friend the Minister of Works, for the attention of local authorities to be drawn to this matter in the new housing manual now in course of preparation. Most local authorities are, I think, aware of the activities of the British Coal Utilisation Research Association, but further information will, I understand, be contained in the reports of the relevant Study Committees of the Post-War Building Directorate of tote Ministry of Works.

Captain Plugge: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the house now being exhibited at the Tate Gallery is fitted with a grate of this type?

Mr. Willink: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will take an opportunity to see the house.

Mr. Shinwell: What is the use of making a recommendation to local authorities unless, in Government-owned houses, the Government take steps to apply the recommendation themselves?

Mr. Willink: I have not said what the recommendation would be. The whole question of these grates is being explored and its examination is not yet complete.

Mr. Keeling: Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the smokelessness of grates may depend to a large extent on what you burn in them?

Captain Pluggc: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this type of grate also radiates much more heat in a room, which is very important?

Building By-laws

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Minister of Health if he will consider the issue of a new set of model building by-laws for the guidance of local authorities so that the development of new methods of construction is not hindered by out-of-date regulations.

Mr. Willink: Revised model building bylaws were issued just before the war for use under the Public Health Act, 1936. New by-laws under that Act are already in force practically everywhere apart from London and some half-dozen provincial towns where the position is governed by special Acts. I fully appreciate the need for securing that by-laws keep pace with modern methods of construction and I shall take steps when necessary to issue revised model by-laws from time to time.

Rents (Hereford)

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the high rents being charged in the neighbourhood of Hereford and the one case, in particular, of which he has been given notice; and whether he will now institute a measure of rent control.

Mr. Willink: I have received details of the case to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, but would draw his attention to sections 9 and 10 of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, the object of which is to prevent the charging of excessive rents for premises let furnished. As he is no doubt aware, an Inter-Departmental Committee is now considering the whole question of rent control.

Commander Locker-Lampson: As we ration almost everything else, why not ration rents?

WAR-TIME NURSERIES, WEMBLEY (AIR RAID SHELTERS)

Mr. Norman Bower: asked the Minister of Health if he has considered the representations from the Wembley Borough Council regarding the provision of gas filtration and air ventilation plant in the shelters attached to their war-time nurseries; and if he will sanction the necessary expenditure for this purpose.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. I have received and considered these representations and have informed the authority that I should not feel justified in sanctioning expenditure for this purpose.

Mr. Bower: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consult the Minister of Home Security about this matter, and ask him whether he thinks this plant ought to be provided?

Mr. Willink: No, Sir. No provision of this kind has been made in public shelters up to now, and in the matter of war-time nurseries, I am doing what I am sure is appropriate, namely, following the practice of the local education authorities.

MENTAL HOSPITALS (CERTIFIED PATIENTS)

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Minister of Health the total number of certified patients, as on 31st December, 1943, in mental hospitals in England and Wales; and what is their percentage of the total population of the country.

Mr. Willink: The total number of certified patients in mental hospitals in England and Wales on the 31st December, 1943, was 115,313. Their percentage to the total estimated population at the middle of 1939 is 0.28.

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Minister of Health the number of certified patients readmitted into mental hospitals in England and Wales in 1943, after having been previously discharged; and what percentage are these patients of the total certified inmates.

Mr. Willink: The number of certified patients readmitted into mental hospitals in England and Wales in 1943 who had previously been dealt with under the Lunacy and Mental Treatment Acts, was 3,904, representing 3.4 per cent. of the total certified patients.

OLD AGE PENSIONS

Mr. Leach: asked the Minister of Health if he will consider altering the pensions law so as to permit women in the late fifties who have lost or never possessed pension rights to qualify upon completing five years' contributions.

Mr. Willink: The question of old age pensions insurance is under consideration in connection with the Government's social insurance proposals, and I cannot undertake to introduce separate amending legislation on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Leach: Should not these women who are now being enrolled for war service have some claim to insurable rights?

Mr. Willink: That matter is, of course, being, considered in connection with the whole range of social insurance.

Mr. Shinwell: Were not these social insurance proposals promised immediately after Easter? What has gone wrong now?

Mr. Willink: I have no recollection of any such promise.

EVACUEES (BILLETING ALLOWANCE)

Mr. Daggar: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that no billeting allowance is paid in the case of an evacuee upon attaining the age of 16 years if serving an apprenticeship and in receipt of a wage of 11s. per week, but an allowance is payable if an evacuee is in attendance at a secondary school; and is he disposed to deal with the anomaly.

Willink: In the case of an unaccompanied evacuee of 16 not in receipt of wages a billeting allowance of 15s. 6d. a week is payable. If the evacuee has left school and is earning a wage, the billeting allowance would not normally be withdrawn until the wage earned equals twice the amount of the billeting allowance. If the hon. Member would send me details of the particular case brought to his notice, I shall be glad to look into it.

RIVER THAMES, TAPLOW (PROPOSED BUILDINGS)

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he will intervene to prevent the extension of the buildings of the Taplow Paper Mills on to Mill and Glen Islands in the Thames between Maidenhead Bridge and Boulter's Lock in order in the local and national interest to protect this reach of the river from further desecration.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The owners of the mills referred to in the Question are at present conducting negotiations with the local planning authorities with a view to making an agreement under Section 34 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932. Such an agreement, if concluded, will require my approval before it can become operative, and it would not therefore be proper for me to make any comment on the matter at this stage.

Sir A. Knox: Will my right hon. Friend do his very best to prevent the further desecration of this reach, not only from the local point of view but from the national point of view, because it is a national asset?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

PENSIONS AND GRANTS

Sir Smedley Crooke: asked the Minister of Pensions whether the increased rates of pension announced in the recent White Paper on Service Pay will be applied to cases from the war 1914–18.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Pensions if the statement contained in Command Paper 6521 of an increase of widows' pensions from 26s. 8d. a week to 32s. 6d. a week applies to widows who are getting a pension through losing their husbands during the 1914–18 war.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): Increases to the new rates shown in the White Paper will be made in the pensions of widows of "other ranks" of the war 1914–18. Officers' widows' pensions of that war are on a different basis.

Mr. Thorne: Will this increase apply to Port of London Authority pensions?

Sir W. Womersley: It applies only to the pensions which I am responsible for administering.

24. Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward asked the Minister of Pensions whether the increased rates of pension announced in the recent White Paper on Service Pay will be granted to Mercantile Marine, Civil Defence and civilian war pensioners.: 

Sir W. Womersley: I am pleased to inform my hon. and gallant Friend that increases corresponding to those announced in the White Paper will be granted in Mercantile Marine, Civil Defence and civilian cases.

Sir A. Lambert Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer will give great satisfaction to the members of these Services, who have made great sacrifices in the Allied cause?

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Pensions (1) if he will raise the allowance paid for a deceased soldier's child, which is 11. a week, and that paid for a totally disabled soldier's child, which is 75. 6d. a week, to the same figure as that paid for a serving soldier's child, which is 12s. 6d. a week; (2) if he will raise the allowance paid to a widow, with children, which is 32s. 6d. a week, to the same figure as that paid to a serving soldier's wife, which is 35s. a week.

Sir W. Womersley: I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to await the Prime Minister's reply to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) later to-day.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

Congress Leaders (Anti-Japanese Pronouncements)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been drawn to an announcement, a copy of which has been sent to him, made by Mr. Jopenath Bardoli, former Premier of Assam and leader of the Congress Parliamentary Party, in regard to the Japanese menace; that similar statements have been made by other Congress members not in detention, including those recently released; and whether, in view of these expressions of hostility to Japanese aggression, the appeals for unity to meet the danger and the frequently expressed condemnation of Japan by Congress leaders now detained the meeting of detained and non-detained Congress representatives will be permitted.

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): I have seen reports of the statements referred to by the hon. Member. I naturally welcome all such declarations of hostility to Japanese ambitions;


but I would remind the hon. Member that the expression of similar sentiments by prominent Congress leaders two years ago did not prevent the Congress Party from passing the resolution of August, 1942. In the circumstances, I am not prepared to ask the Government of India to adopt the suggestion made in the last part of the Question.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the Minister recognise the definite anti-Fascist attitude of the Congress Party?

Mr. Amery: Certainly—of those who have expressed themselves in that sense.

Mr. Sorensen: Then will the Minister give others who cannot publicly express their views, the opportunity to do so?

Dominion Prime Ministers' Meetings (Representation)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India, what political, economic or other questions affecting India will be considered at the Conference of Dominion Premiers.

Mr. Amery: The proceedings of the Conference of Dominion Prime Ministers are confidential and I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject matter of the discussions.

Mr. Sorensen: Why is India apparently not represented at this Conference? Could not the right hon. Gentleman endeavour, though late in the clay, to have representatives of India at the Conference?

Mr. Amery: They are taking part. Any statement made about the discussions is naturally made by agreement between all those participating.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the treatment being meted out to India may have the result that we shall lose India yet?

Army Censorship

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now make a statement about the protests made by leading British journalists in India against the Army censorship authorities; and whether he is satisfied that the censors acted solely on grounds of military security.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The censorship action against which five correspondents protested was taken on instructions from South East Asia Command because, so I understand, it was felt that the success of operations might be jeopardised by the publication of their reports at that moment. There may of course be room for differences of opinion as to what information will be of use to the enemy, but the judgment of the Commander-in-Chief in such cases must be accepted.

Mr. Strauss: Is the Minister aware that these correspondents maintain that no security matter whatever was contained in the cables which had been censored? Has the War Office looked into the matter and considered what the despatches were?

Mr. Henderson: As a matter of fact we have asked for a further report. We are anxious to establish proper relations between the Press and the military censorship authorities, but I would prefer to add nothing to my answer until we have had this further report.

Mr. Astor: Can the Minister say whether steps have been taken to strengthen the censorship and public relation offices in that Command?

Mr. Henderson: We had better wait until we have had this further report, and then we can decide what further action, if any, is necessary.

Sir H. Williams: Why not use the new public relations officer of the Treasury, because he will have nothing else useful to do?

Mr. Sorensen: Could the Minister let the House see at an early date what it was that the correspondents were supposed not to send?

Mr. Henderson: I should prefer to wait until I see this further report.

Mr. Granville: In view of the great efforts the Government made to get war correspondents to go to this particular front, and in view of the willingness of the newspapers to see that this war front gets a good show, will not the Minister see that nothing is done to prevent the right background and local colour being given to this important campaign?

Mr. Henderson: I think that, on the whole, the relationship between the Press and the military censorship authorities has been good. I would like to wait until I get this report so that I may see what happened.

Mr. Strauss: Would the Minister bear in mind that military censorship always has a tendency to develop into political censorship unless it is carefully checked?

Mr. Gallacher: Are we to take it that it is not just the "Daily Worker" that the Minister does not trust but that he does not trust any of the papers?

WOMEN POLICE

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the cases in which he has overridden the opinion of local authorities in regard to the employment of policewomen, with the reasons for his action in each instance.

Major Thorneycroft: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take Lo ensure that his policy of increasing the effectiveness of the police force by appointing women police shall not be obstructed by chief constables or watch committees who are opposed to that policy.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have not yet received replies from all police authorities, but on my present information it would appear that the majority are prepared to adopt the suggestions which I have made to them. A few cases in which police authorities remain unconvinced of the need for attested policewomen have been referred to His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary for further examination and, if need be, discussion with the police authority. I have not yet found it necessary to override the opinion of any police authority, and I hope that, as the result of reasonable discussion, no such necessity will arise.

Sir L. Lyle: Is it not a fact that chief constables and watch committees are far more likely to know what is best in their own areas than people in Whitehall?

Mr. Morrison: I have always taken the view that the views of local people must

be fully taken into account, and I do not want to override them if I can help it.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that watch committees all over the country need more watching than anyone else?

Mr. Morrison: In the meantime perhaps the Lady Mayoress of Plymouth will see what she can do with the Plymouth Watch Committee.

Viscountess Astor: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that he wants us to be as successful in Plymouth in getting women police as we were in getting a National Fire Service?

Mr. Morrison: I am sorry that the Noble Lady has not been as successful yet about women police, but she has been very slow.

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of boys and girls who appeared before juvenile courts in 1943.

Mr. H. Morrison: I cannot give the exact figures for which my hon. Friend asks, but provisional figures for the number of boys and girls under 17, found guilty of indictable offences in magistrates' courts in England and Wales in 1943, are as follows:

Boys
…
…
…
34,879


Girls
…
…
…
3,477

Dr. Thomas: Is there not a tendency to bring small boys and girls before these courts, in cases of what used to be regarded as ordinary mischief, which could be dealt with in a variety of other ways?

Mr. Morrison: I think it cuts both ways. It may be that, with the development of juvenile courts, court procedure is resorted to with less objection than before. On the other hand, I have heard objection made to chief constables dealing with children directly without taking them to court. I think, on balance, we are doing the best we can.

Dr. Thomas: Is there not always the danger of a small boy being sent away to an approved school for nothing more than mischief?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think that is the case in my experience. I think it only happens in cases of real necessity.

TAXICABS, LONDON (SHARING)

Commander King-Hall: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any further statement to make about sharing of taxicabs in London.

Mr. H. Morrison: The arrangements to which I have referred in my answers to previous questions for the encouragement of sharing of cabs at railway termini are still in effective operation; and it is not thought that there are any further steps which can usefully be taken in this matter. The American scheme, which was the subject of my hon. and gallant Friend's question to me on the 4th November last, has been examined in consultation with the other Departments concerned, but appears to contain no features which, in so far as they are not already reflected in our own practice, are appropriate for adoption in this country.

Commander King-Hall: Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the question of the sharing of taxis at the main line stations in London, and, in particular, see how this so-called organisation works, for example, at Waterloo? There is no system except that of a constable shouting directions. Cannot the taxis be organised into several picking-up points, according to destinations, so that people know where to go?

Mr. Morrison: I will keep it under review.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Burnham Committees (Reorganisation)

Sir John Mellor: asked the President of the Board of Education what is the present constitution of the Burnham Committees; what changes are proposed by him; and what consultation has taken place with minorities of teachers.

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): There are at present three Burnham Committees, consisting of representatives of local education authorities and of teachers, which deal with the salaries of teachers in elementary, secondary and technical schools respectively. In view of the provision of the Education Bill I have taken steps to replace the existing three committees by two committees, one of which will deal with salaries in primary and secondary

schools and in young people's colleges, and the other to deal with salaries in senior technical and similar institutions. I have decided not to make any change in the present basis of representation, which has been in force since the inception of the committees, other than to provide for the separate representation of Wales upon the authorities' panels. Full consideration has been given to minority views.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the National Association of School Masters, which has 10,000 members, be represented under the new arrangement?

Mr. Butler: No, representation will continue on the existing basis, which has been in force for some time.

Sir J. Mellor: Why will they not be represented?

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that uncertificated teachers are adequately represented?

Mr. Butler: I am satisfied that the teachers' interests have been well served for the last 20 years or more.

Sir J. Mellor: Do not the numbers of the National Association of School Masters justify their representation?

Mr. Butler: This is a very difficult matter to deal with by question and answer. The fact is that the Burnham machinery has worked well. The present arrangements take the teachers' point of view fully into account. I am satisfied, after examination over a long period, that if we altered the system of representation, the Burnham machinery would not work as well as it does.

Teachers (Emergency Training)

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can give any indication in numbers of the men and women in the Services who have intimated their desire to enrol in the emergency scheme for the teaching profession; and whether he has arranged the necessary priority for their demobilisation.

Mr. Butler: Preliminary information about the scheme of emergency training for the teaching profession is being made available to the Services, but no steps have yet been taken to ascertain how many men and women will wish to apply for enrolment under the scheme; nor is it


possible to make any statement now as to the arrangements which will be made for releases from the Services.

Mrs. Cozalet Keir: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the scheme?

Mr. Butler: Yes. Following upon the MacNair Report, published to-day, we propose to give details of the emergency training scheme, which will, I hope, meet the emergency needs of the education service.

Mr. Lipson: To whom do men and women in the Forces have to make application for enrolment as prospective teachers?

Mr. Butler: I cannot go into details at this stage.

Mr. Sorensen: What objection can there be to securing preliminary lists of applications from those in the Services?

Mr. Butler: There is nothing that I can say officially, but the hon. Member will be aware that we are always on the spot and we are doing our best in difficult circumstances.

MacNair Committee (Report)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mrs. CAZALET KEIR:

38. "To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he can give an assurance that the Report of the MacNair Committee will be published before the Report stage of the Education Bill.

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: This Question is answered by the publication of the Report to-day.

WHIT-MONDAY (BANK HOLIDAY)

Mr. Touche: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether next Whitsun Monday is to be a Bank Holiday.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): I have been asked to reply. The announcement of the Government's view on holidays in 1944, made by the Ministry of Labour and National Service on 17th February last, included Whit Monday in the list of approved holidays. Accordingly no steps have been taken, or are in contemplation, to amend the statutory provisions which make Whit Monday a Bank Holiday in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Post-War Reconstruction

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will, omitting purely wartime provision, state in detail the financial commitments into which the Government has already entered in connection with post-war reconstruction or development.

Mr. Assheton: I have been asked to reply. The financial effect of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act and of the Education and Rural Water and Sewerage Bills is set out in the financial memoranda which accompanied the respective Bills. The White Paper on a National Health Service contains an appendix on finance, and the forthcoming White Papers on Social Insurance and Workmen's Compensation will deal with the financial aspects of those schemes. In other fields in which plans involving large expenditure are under consideration, matters have not yet reached a stage at which estimates can be given of the expenditure to be incurred but Parliament will certainly be fully informed on their financial aspects in due course.

Income Tax (Spinsters)

Mr. Leach: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can see his way to make the same income tax rebate to a wage-earning spinster living with another single woman unable to earn as he now makes to husband and wife.

Mr. Assheton: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend cannot see his way to propose an amendment of the law as suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Leach: Has not a woman living in the circumstances outlined in my Question performed a real national service in the saving of expenditure to the public, and should she not be treated in the same way as the wife of a married man?

Mr. Assheton: This is only one of a number of similar cases which could be put forward.

Service Personnel (Taxation Relief)

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether steps have now been taken, in conjunction with Departments, to inform Service personnel, and especi-


ally prisoners of war in Germany, of taxation relief to which they may be entitled.

Mr. Assheton: Yes, Sir, A statement explaining the Income Tax position of members of the Forces who are serving abroad or are prisoners of war will be included in the next issue of the official Journal of the Prisoners of War Department of the Red Cross, which will be published in a few days' time. The memorandum will also be reproduced in orders issued by the three Service Departments in the near future.

OVERSEAS TRADE DEPARTMENT (STAFF)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department by how many officers of the principal assistant secretary, assistant secretary or equivalent grades, the staff of his Department has been increased since the 20th instant, when there were five such officers; when the additions were made; what duties are allocated to the additional officers in these grades; how those duties were previously provided for; and whether the addition will enable a deputy to be provided, without the payment of an allowance, for the director of the overseas division, when the latter is absent abroad.

Mr. Harcourt Johnstone (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The staff of the Department was increased on 24th April by one such officer. He is employed on the preparation of the reports on markets to which I referred yesterday in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton. He will not be available for the duties referred to in the last part of the Question.

1939–43 STAR (SERVICE IN ITALY)

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Prime Minister whether service in Italy from 2nd September to 31st December, 1943, will rank for the award of the 1939–43 Star.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Service in Italy from 3rd September to 31st December, 1943, may be counted towards the qualifying period of six months.

DOMINION PRIME MINISTERS (ADDRESSES TO MEMBERS OF BOTH HOUSES)

Mr. Edgar Granville: asked the Prime Minister if he can now give the date upon which the visiting Dominion Prime Ministers will address a gathering of the Members of both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Attlee: An announcement on this subject will be made in Secret Session.

Mr. Granville: Has an invitation been made to the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand to address a gathering of Members of both Houses of Parliament which can be broadcast? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the people of Australia and New Zealand have an interest in this announcement?

Mr. Attlee: I am in consultation with the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand on the matter.

Viscountess Astor: Is this not a very rude Question to put at this moment, and will it not cause great trouble if it is read in Australia?

Captain Plugge: Have arrangements been completed for these speeches to be broadcast by the American broadcasting station in Britain so that they may be heard in Europe and in America?

Mr. Granville: Would it not have been far more diplomatic to have done this thing privately in the first place and to have announced that the Prime Ministers would address gatherings of both Houses?

PRIME MINISTER'S BROADCASTS (POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Prime Minister whether his broadcasts of 21st March, 1943, and 26th March, 1944, represent the policy of His Majesty's Government on the subject of post-war reconstruction.

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Dugdale: Does this mean that all members of the Cabinet were personally responsible for the unfortunate phraseology in which Members of Parliament, civic authorities, and ordinary citizens were referred to as "busy wiseacres" because they disagreed with the Prime Minister and wanted quicker measures of reconstruction than he did?

Mr. Attlee: I am afraid that I have not in mind the passage in the speech to which the hon. Member refers.

SERVICE PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Miss Ward: asked the Prime Minister if he will circulate with the OFFICIAL REPORT the points which are under discussion with the Service Departments arising out of the informal committee on Service Pay and Allowances.

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir.

Miss Ward: What objection is there to letting the House of Commons and the country know what are the points which are being discussed? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I think the whole situation has been extremely badly handled?

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to amend the provisions in the White Paper on Service Pay and Allowances regarding the allowances to be paid to widows and children so that payments may be maintained at the same rates as those which obtained before the death of the serving man.

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir.

Sir A. Southby: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this is a matter which is giving grave concern in the Services, and that although his laconic and somewhat rude answer may go down in the House, it will not go down in the Services?

Captain Plugge: Would my right hon. Friend make provision for the widow to receive, on the death of a serving man, the gratuity for which he has qualified?

Sir I. Fraser: Does my right hon. Friend remember that in August last the Government assimilated these rates, which were previously different, so that the case for the fatherless child having the same money as the child of a serving soldier was admitted by the Government then? In the light of this, will the Government reconsider the matter?

Mr. Attlee: My hon. and gallant Friend knows very well that there are different conditions. There is, for instance, a rent allowance in one case and not in the other.

Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is really no justification for this discrimination, and that, in fact, when a wife becomes a widow she may require more remuneration than before? Would he not in all the circumstances take this back and give it further consideration?

Mr. Attlee: The matter has been carefully considered. As I pointed out to my hon. and gallant Friend, there are other matters to be taken into consideration in the question of a widow's pension, notably the rent allowance.

Mr. Turton: Surely the rent allowance was given before. Will my right hon. Friend consider reconvening the conference to consider this problem, which was not considered at the conference?

Mr. Attlee: I do not think that is necessary.

Mr. Bellenger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although a rent supplement is made to the widow, the war service grant that she may have been drawing while her husband was alive is withdrawn soon after the death of her husband, so that the one balances the other?

Sir A. Southby: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies given by the right hon. Gentleman I should in ordinary circumstances have given notice to raise the matter on the Adjournment, but, in view of impending operations, I reserve my right to raise it later on.

PATULIN

Colonel Lyons: asked the Lord President of the Council if he can make any statement on the efficacy and recent trials of the anti-bacterial product patulin; what steps are being taken by his department in the promotion of its usage and test; to what extent is it available; whether large-scale manufacture is being encouraged; and whether, and when, any Report has been made on it by the Medical Research Council.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Attlee): In view of the inconsistent results of preliminary trials of patulin in the treatment of the comon cold, the Medical Research Council accepted an invitation to undertake the organisation and control of clinical trials on a larger scale. These


trials have been in progress during the winter months in various industrial establishments and in a small number of schools. The results are now being analysed, and it is hoped that it will be possible to make a statement at an early date. Patulin is not at present generally available, and unless there is definite evidence of its value it would not be justifiable under existing conditions to encourage production on a large scale.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Hill Sheep Subsidy

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will reconsider the reduction from 8s, to 6s. of the hill sheep subsidy.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): One of the primary objects of the hill sheep subsidy is to give a suitable measure of assistance to a class of farmers who have been adversely affected by the war. In the light of a review of their present economic position and of other relevant considerations, I am satisfied that a rate of 6s. per ewe is sufficient for this purpose.

Sir I. Fraser: Is my right hon. Friend really satisfied by inquiry that our flocks of sheep are adequate and increasing, so as to provide us with meat in due time without undue importation from other places?

Mr. Hudson: I think that the answer is "Yes, Sir."

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Cumberland farmers are not in agreement with his point of view, and will he be good enough to receive representations in regard to this subsidy if they are brought to him?

Allotment Holders (Security of Tenure)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister for Agriculture whether he proposes to give security of tenure to allotment holders, as recommended by Lord Justice Scott's Committee.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Howdenshire (Colonel Carver) on 16th February, of which I am sending him a copy.

PRICE REGULATION COMMITTEE, NORTH MIDLAND REGION

Colonel Lyons: asked the Minister of Food if he has now considered the evidence submitted to him by the Price Regulation Committee for the North Midland Region in relation to charges for board and lodging; and what additional powers he proposes to seek to deal with the matter.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mahone): The reply to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's Question is "Yes, Sir." As regards the second part, my right hon. and gallant Friend proposes to keep the subject under constant review, but he has seen no evidence up to the present which would justify him in taking additional powers as is suggested.

WAR TENANCIES (LEGAL DECISION)

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Attorney-General if he has considered the decision in the case of Lace v. Chandler, 1944, 1 A.E.R., page 305, and the resulting hardship on tenants who entered into agreements not knowing that a tenancy for the duration of the war was void for uncertainty of term; and whether he will take steps to alter the law in this respect.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Sir David King Murray): I have been asked to reply. The case to which my hon. Friend refers has been brought to the attention of my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. The question whether legislation is desirable is already under consideration.

MARRIED WOMEN (NATIONALITY)

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Attorney-General whether, having regard to the plight of British women who lose their domicile by marrying men whose domicile is outside the United Kingdom when they are subsequently deserted by their husbands, he will consider the introduction of a Bill on the lines of the Divorce Jurisdiction (Overseas Domicile) Bill, introduced in 1927 by the honourable Member for Croydon, South.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: As I think my hon. Friend is aware, the solution which he suggests involves legislation in both the countries concerned. My Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is already in consultation with the appropriate authorities with a view to considering the possibility of reciprocal legislation with the Dominion Governments on the lines of the Matrimonial Causes (Dominions Troops) Act, 1919.

Sir H. Williams: As we have complete power, by our own legislation, to determine the domicile of a person who marries somebody not domiciled in this country, surely we can do this without the necessity of reciprocal legislation?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I will convey the remarks of my hon. Friend to my right hon. and learned Friend.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he will state the Business of the House for the coming week?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The Business for next week will be as follows:
Tuesday, 9th May—Report stage of the Education Bill.
Wednesday, 10th May—A Debate will take place on the White Paper relating to an International Monetary Fund. (Command Paper 6519.)
Thursday, 11th May, and Friday, 12th May—Conclusion of the Report stage, and Third Reading, of the Education Bill.
During the week, if there is time, we shall take the Second Reading of the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Bill. When we have disposed of Business questions, I have a statement to make to the House. It is considered desirable to make it in Secret Session, and I shall accordingly spy Strangers.

Mr. Greenwood: It has been reported to me to-day, that there is a certain anxiety in the minds of many Members of the House with regard to certain anomalies which have arisen out of the pay and allowances decision of the Government. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the

Government can undertake to examine the anomalies which have been placed before them. Otherwise I fear there may be a very strong demand for a Debate.

Mr. Attlee: Certainly, the Government will examine any anomalies and any detailed points.

Mr. Greenwood: I would like to put this further point to my right hon. Friend. If, say, next Thursday I ask whether further consideration has been given to that matter, can I hope for some sort of favourable reply?

Mr. Attlee: I will certainly look into that matter and see how far the examination has gone.

Mr. Loftus: In view of the great importance of next Wednesday's Debate on the White Paper on the International Monetary Fund, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange to extend the time of the Sitting by at least one hour?

Mr. Attlee: Yes, I think so, if that is the: general wish of the House.

Mr. Shinwell: In regard to the proposed Debate on international currency arrangements on Wednesday, do the Government propose, in addition to the White Paper, to accept any of the Motions on the Paper dealing with the subject, or to make any of those Motions the foundation of the Debate? In that event, will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that, although Motion No. 50 has been placed on the Paper in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot)

[That this House considers that the Statement of Principles contained in Cmd. 6519 provides a suitable foundation for further international consultation with a: view to improved monetary co-operation after the war.]

—there is another Motion, No. 47?

[That, in the opinion of this House, the primary objective of our economic policy after the war should be the maintenance of full employment; and His Majesty's Government should enter into no commitments in respect of currency or trade which might prevent them from carrying out an expansionist policy designed to achieve this end.]

in the names of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), myself and


other Members; and that if Motion No. 50 is omitted by the Government, there will be a desire expressed by other hon. Members to put forward Motion No. 47? Will the Government therefore state their intention?

Mr. Attlee: We had thought that the House would desire as wide a Debate on this matter as possible and that the Motion in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) would provide a very suitable opportunity, and would not restrict the Debate at all.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it the case that the Motion in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove and other hon. Members is on the Paper at the request of the Government? If that is so, as I understand it is, would it not be much better for the Government to take charge of a Motion themselves, instead of inspiring hon. and right hon. Members to undertake that task? May I put a further point, because this matter is exceedingly important? If there is already a Motion on the Paper in the names of hon. Members who are associated with another Motion put on the Paper subsequently, surely, in those circumstances, the Government ought to indicate their plain intention and not leave it to Private Members.

Mr. Attlee: The House asked for a Debate on a number of Motions on the Paper. It is a matter of meeting the convenience of the House what Motion will be taken.

Sir Irving Albery: With reference to to the money Debate on Wednesday, will the House be placed in possession of the information as to which of our Dominions and which foreign countries took part in these discussions?

Mr. Attlee: I would like to have notice of that question.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Are the Government yet in a position to announce the approximate date when we can have a Debate on the issue of equal pay in the public services?

Mr. Attlee: I am afraid I cannot announce it now. I hope to do so perhaps next week. The Government are rather heavily pressed at the moment, and it is a rather important matter.

Sir A. Southby: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. A. Greenwood) to the effect that he would consider anomalies, may I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to bear in mind that in Questions on Tuesday and to-day I raised two points which are of great importance to the Forces and to which he gave categorical negatives? Is he now prepared to reconsider those matters?

Mr. Bellenger: May I put this point to my right hon. Friend? It is quite obvious from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. A. Greenwood) has said, that there is a certain amount of disquiet in various quarters about certain aspects of the Government's White Paper. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to deal with it, not by way of discussion in this House, but by referring individual Members to various Service Departments. Some of these anomalies have already been presented to the Government in written form, but they would not accept a written memorandum when unofficial members asked them to do so. Can we have a Debate to discuss these matters?

Mr. Attlee: It would probably be better if those issues were considered when Members have seen the results of the discussion. We will then see whether the House would like a further Debate.

Miss Ward: When the moment is appropriate, can we have a full Debate on the Government White Paper on pay and allowances? Am I not right in assuming that, during the Debate which finally led to the setting up of the informal committee, a pledge was given that there would be a Debate on the White Paper when it was issued?

Mr. Attlee: I thought that the general view of the House was that there was no particular desire for an immediate Debate.

Mr. Boothby: Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House, either to-day or in the near future, which Motion is to be taken in the Debate next Wednesday, because the Motion in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvin-grove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) somewhat narrows the issue, and mine is the wider Motion of the two? There is no antagonism between the two, but his does actually limit the issue.

Mr. Attlee: The Government will take into consideration the points which have been made with regard to the Motion. Our only desire is that the House should have the widest Debate, and the fullest opportunity of debating all the issues in the White Paper. I should have thought myself that the Motion in the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove was very wide.

Sir H. Williams: Is it proposed to take Item 5 on the Order Paper to-day, because it relates to the future, but by the time it is taken, it will appear to relate to the past, owing to the confusion which arose yesterday? In the circumstances is it proposed to drop the Motion which was discussed yesterday?

Mr. Attlee: We are hoping that the matter may be taken formally.

Sir H. Williams: Is it not rather absurd to introduce a Bill in a few minutes' time, and then pass a Motion welcoming something that has already happened? As the Government have got into a mess, had they not better drop the Motion?

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: With regard to the international currency Debate next Wednesday, will the Government, in selecting which Motion is taken, be careful to select a Motion which will relieve the House of the necessity of hearing a long rigmarole from somebody or other who knows nothing whatever about it?

Mr. Lewis: May I ask a question on a matter of Business? I am not quite sure, Mr. Speaker, whether it should be addressed to you or to the Leader of the House. The question is this: I want to know whether, now that the dates of our Sittings are published, it would not be possible to revert to the old system of having the daily ballot for tickets for admission to the Members' Gallery, for this reason? The present system is very inconvenient.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a question on Business.

Mr. Gallacher: In connection with anomalies arising out of the White Paper on pay and allowances, would the right hon. Gentleman consider a serious anomaly? In view of the fact that the Government allow 35s. as the minimum for the maintenance of a wife, how can they justify—

Mr. Speaker: That is not a question on Business.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. It is a very important question on Business. This is a matter I wish to have discussed. Will the Government not consider the re-assembly of the Members' conference to consider the anomaly that now exists in relation to old age pensions?

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 18th April].

[Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]

CLAUSE 3 (Supplementary and administrative provisions.)

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 34, to leave out "Sub-section (1)," and to insert "Sub-sections (1) and (4)."—[Mr. Manningham-Buller.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I think it was at this point, when we were last in Committee on this Bill, that I moved to report Progress. It would perhaps be convenient, therefore, if I rose at this stage to give the Committee the result of the inquiry which I undertook should be given on the subject matter of Amendments that had appeared on the Paper, for the first time, on the last occasion we discussed this question. The matter raised by the Amendment concerns the Parliamentary procedure to be followed in regard to certain subsidiary instruments for which the Bill makes provision. There have been, for some time, Amendments on the Paper the effect of which would be to make subject to an affirmative Resolution, instruments which, under the Bill, would not be subject to an affirmative Resolution, and there is also on the Paper this Amendment which we are now discussing, which would extend the Amendments that are subject to negative Resolution. I want to make it clear to the Committee that, without prejudice to the further consideration of a general character, which, as I have previously explained, the Government contemplate should be given by this House to the whole question of the relation of Parliament to subordinate legislation, the Government are perfectly willing, for the purpose of this Bill, to accept the proposal that the procedure by way of negative Resolution should be extended in the manner suggested. They could not agree to an extension of procedure by way of affirmative Resolution. I am, therefore, prepared, on behalf of the Government, to accept the Amendment which has just been put and also the consequential Amendment which appears on the Paper.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am glad to hear the words of the Chancellor that the whole question of consideration of delegated legislation is being fully considered. I would like to add that it seems to me, that the extent of the control retained by Parliament must, in each case, depend on the extent to which the power of Parliament is delegated. I would like to add that this Amendment and the next Amendment on the Order Paper were considered, on the last occasion, together, and together they provided for an affirmative Resolution. The one which the Chancellor of the

Exchequer has now accepted provides for a negative Resolution. I welcome the Chancellor's acceptance of the first and, with the leave of the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the second Amendment which was under discussion.

The Deputy-Chairman: That Amendment has not actually been moved.

Question put, and negatived.

Proposed words there inserted.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 3, leave out "Sub-section (1)," and insert "Sub-sections (1) and (4)."—.[My. Manningham-Buller.]

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): I beg to move, in page 5, line 4, at the end, to add:
(7) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any Order in Council made thereunder, any provision made by or under any enactment shall, in so far as it relates to the apportionment of the cost of a pension between two or more authorities, or to the manner in which a pension is to be paid, or to the proof of title to sums payable on account of a pension, or in so far as it prohibits or restricts the assignment or charging of a pension or its application towards the payment of debts, have effect in relation to any increase payable under this Act as it has effect in relation to the pension in respect of which the increase is payable; but save as aforesaid any such increase shall not be treated as part of the pension for the purposes of any such provision as aforesaid.
This Amendment is to secure that certain rights of the pensioner and of the pension authority attach to the increase in the same way as they attach to the original pension. As the Committee is aware, a great many Acts already deal with these things and it is convenient that these things should be brought together under one Sub-section, and that the various Acts dealing with them should be brought into relation with the new Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir J. Anderson: When Clause 3 was previously under discussion, a Debate arose on an Amendment moved, I think, by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) the purpose of which was to secure special treatment by way of disregard for certain allowances payable in respect of war casualties. Owing to circumstances, of which the Committee is familiar, the business of the Com-


mittee was interrupted in the course of the Debate on my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment and it was resumed after the interruption in conditions which did not—perhaps owing to my not having risen at the appropriate moment—secure a prolongation of that particular Debate. I think I owe it, therefore, to the Committee to say what the view of the Government would have been, had the Debate at that time been continued, in regard to the question raised by the Amendment.
When, in framing this Bill, I came to consider how other income of a pensioner affected by the Bill should be taken into account, I naturally looked, first, at such special items of income as war allowances which had been, on previous occasions, made the subject of special treatment. I found, as the result of investigation, that in the assessment for example of supplementary pensions, Assistance Board grants, and Service dependants' allowances, disablement pensions are made subject to disregard to the extent of £1 a week and no more. There is no question of a disregard exceeding £1 a week. I then had to consider other cases, such as workmen's compensation allowances and civil injury allowances and it seemed clear to me that they should be treated in the same way. Then there was the case of casual earnings by a pensioner which it is not desirable to discourage in war-time. It seemed to me that there was a case there, for a disregard and, in the end, I came to the conclusion that the simplest way to deal with the whole matter was to have a general and unqualified disregard of £1 a week.
It will be seen and realised by hon. Members that that disregard does, in effect, ensure that a pensioner who has a war pension of £1 a week or more, and no other income, gets £1 of that pension left out of account precisely in accordance with the decisions taken by Parliament in connection with the other matters to which I have referred. I can perfectly well understand the feeling that it would be desirable to mark out in a special way for this purpose, allowances of that sort which do, in fact, present special features. But I think that it will be clear to hon. Members, if they examine the matter, that a specific disregard, such as was asked for in the Amendment proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend, cannot really be

reconciled with a general disregard. The general disregard mops up the other and the two cannot be fitted in together. I hope, therefore, that my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment and those other hon. Members who supported him, will accept my explanation, and when I have made it clear that there was no purpose in my mind to go back on any special consideration, which this House might have been willing to give in other cases to the special allowances, that they will be content to agree 'to the Clause as it stands.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: As one of those who supported the Amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), I would like to add a few words. I admit it seems to me that a distinction can be drawn between disability and workmen's compensation pensions, but I would like to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his clear explanation of his reasons for adopting this general disregard, and for his explanation of the apparent discrepancy between the provisions of Clause I and Clause 2 in the Schedule. While I feel that disability pensions deserve different treatment, I must say that I, myself, am satisfied by the arguments the Chancellor has put forward in support of the Clause as it stands.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I think we should be grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his very clear exposition and the reasons he has given for not distinguishing between these different pensions, but I must say that, while I am satisfied with the explanation, I am not at all satisfied with the amount of the disregard—£50 a year. I hope that the evident readiness and good humour with which the Committee now accepts the Chancellor's explanation, will not harden his heart or sterilise his arteries when we come, later on, to discuss whether the disregard should be £50 or more.

Sir William Allen (Armagh): I should like to refer to something which bears particularly on this point. When supporting my hon. and gallant Friend on the last occasion I raised the case of the disability pension of a soldier who was wounded in 1918, and a Royal Irish Constabulary pension in respect of 28 years' service. I think it would be reasonable to extend what has been granted to the long-service


pensioner, in addition to his pension for disability, to the case of the Royal Irish Constabulary pension for 28 years' service. This pension has been curtailed by so much, and I think the pension ought to be disregarded. I would like the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor to take that point into consideration.

Sir J. Anderson: I confess I find it very difficult to associate with the Measure which provides for supplementing a particular pension, a proposal that that pension should be disregarded. I do not understand how that can possibly be done. The long-service Royal Irish Constabulary pension which my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen) has in mind, comes within the category of pensions to which additions will be made by this Bill. They differ in that respect from disability pensions for war service which are not touched by this Bill, and, therefore, the disregard of disability pensions, in common with other allowances which are not supplemented by this Bill, is a reasonable and logical course to take. Where you have a pension which itself is subject to supplement under this Bill, I really cannot see the point raised by my hon. Friend.

Sir W. Allen: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that, when a Service pension is reduced, because of a disability pension, to £1 7s. 6d., this Bill ought to make provision to disregard the disability pension, so that a man with 28 years' service in the Royal Irish Constabulary should receive his pension in full, in addition to his disability pension?

Sir J. Anderson: Surely, the pensioners in whom my hon. and gallant Friend is interested are almost entirely pensioners at low rates who will get the fullest benefit under this Bill without any question of disregard arising in regard to it.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Extension of provisions of section one.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Before we part with this Clause, I would like to ask the Government to explain the principles on which they are

proposing to act in this matter. I notice that an Amendment that was down on the Order Paper in the name of one of my hon. Friends, to include all public utility undertakings, has not been called. I would like the Government to explain why they have taken this course, and I would also like to receive an assurance—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt, but the Government could not possibly reply to that, because it would be considered out of Order. The Amendment itself is out of Order.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I think I can cover my point by asking on what principles the Government are going to act in dealing with this Order in Council, and, if the particular point referred to in this Amendment is out of Order, the Chancellor can explain the general principles on which the Government are proceeding to act. There is another point to which I want to call attention. I understand there are certain local government officers who have not spent their whole time as officers of local government. I would like to have an assurance that any period of service undergone by them in so-called private employment will be counted for the purpose of pension as if it had all been served directly in local government.

Mr. McEntee: Would it be convenient for the Chancellor to give some indication of what is meant by the first two or three lines of the Clause?

Sir J. Anderson: That is the question which I thought was put by the right hon. Gentleman. As to the general effect of the Bill in regard to different classes of pension, what we have tried to do is to cover pensions which are payable out of public funds. We are not dealing with pensions payable otherwise, of which there are very many, as hon. Members know. We found, in drafting this Bill, that there was a great variety of pensions within the first category I have mentioned, that is, pensions payable out of public funds, that had to be covered. Some of them are provided under private Acts and it is not possible to be sure that, in a general way, even if the terms of this Bill are made fairly wide, they would cover all the pensions we desire to include. We, therefore, have this omnibus provision for bringing in, by Order in


Council, other kinds of pensions that may come to light, according to the division of the pensions field which I have just indicated.
One case in particular is the kind of case that my right hon. Friend specified. There are officers who have been what used to be called in the Civil Service, "lump sum-ers," and some of them have gone on being "lump sum-ers," and were paid remuneration out of a lump sum put at the disposal of an officer of the local council. In some cases, there used to be lump sums given to civil servants—persons paid direct by the Exchequer—for the purpose of remunerating clerks and servants. These people, in certain conditions, became eligible for pension, and, in some cases, the whole of their service was remunerated by such lump sums. In other cases, they passed from being "lump sum-ers" into the ordinary category of salaried officials. We certainly do want to bring them in, if they satisfy the general conditions of the Bill, in respect of the whole of their pension, whether payable in virtue of service remunerated by the lump sum or otherwise. I hope that explanation will satisfy my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Hutchinson: May I put this to my right hon. Friend? I think my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) put it to the Chancellor as his first point. There are a number of pensioners who were in the service of bodies which are public authorities, such bodies, for example, as the Port of London Authority. As I understand my right hon. Friend's reply, it will not be possible for an Order to be made under this Clause which will deal with that class of pension.

The Deputy-Chairman: That type of person is definitely outside the scope of this Bill.

Mr. Hutchinson: I understood that to be my right hon. Friend's reply. But I should like to ask whether it is proposed to take any action in regard to that particular class of pensioners, because they seem to be, in a sense, within exactly the same class as the persons whom this Bill is intended to benefit.

Sir J. Anderson: The position is perfectly simple. The Government have thought it right to embrace, in this Bill,

all classes of pensioners for whom the State, through the executive Government, could be thought to have some sort of responsibility. There are of course cases near the borderline; some come into the Bill, unlike the Port of London Authority, which is outside. Thus there is the case of the Metropolitan Water Board which will be covered by the Bill, because it is regarded as a local authority in relation with the executive Government. We have gone as far as we could, but we could not possibly have gone to the point of requiring all sorts of authorities and organisations, which have an obligation to pay pensions to whoever it may be, to assume, without any possibility of prior consultation, an additional responsibility under this Bill. It may be that some of them will consider that the Government being specially good employers, would not wish to follow the example of the Government in this matter. But, on the other hand, it may be that some will be willing to give additions to pensions, following the precedent of the Bill. I should be delighted if that were so, but we could not, in a Bill of this kind, extend the obligation to grant additional pensions in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Maxton: I want to raise the question of the pensions of a very small group of persons on the Civil List. It includes a small number of people—

Sir J. Anderson: These are outside the scope of the Bill. These are prerogative pensions which are in the discretion of His Majesty, and which could be adjusted if it were thought fit, but we could not properly discuss the position in regard to them.

Mr. Maxton: Surely the general principle which led this House to demand and the Chancellor to accede to it—it is almost a meagre amount—

The Deputy-Chairman: This is clearly outside the scope of the Bill. They are entirely a different category, provided for in a different Measure.

Mr. Maxton: This Sub-section is very wide, and I thought it was a matter for the Chancellor, to whom we were giving power. The distinction that was previously drawn referred to those for whom the State had some responsibility as dis-


tinct from local authorities and others. The right hon. Gentleman defended this Sub-section on the ground that it covers, in the widest way, all those for whom the State has some direct responsibility.

Sir J. Anderson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Maxton: The right hon. Gentleman says "No."

Sir J. Anderson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say what the position is, as I understand it. This Bill is concerned with pensions which are governed by Statute. It is because these pensions are governed by Statute—practically all of them are, but not quite all—that legislation is necessary. This Bill does not deal with Service pensions —the ordinary pensions granted under Royal Warrant—because they are not statutory, and there is no need to provide for them in the Bill, but, in regard to the particular allowances which the hon. Member has in mind, the position is that these allowances come out of the Civil List granted to the Sovereign, and no Minister is responsible to Parliament for the allowances so granted; and, though it might be said that they come in the category of pensions for which the State, in its highest significance, has a concern, they could not properly be dealt with by this Bill, nor could action be taken by the Government under this Bill.

Mr. Maxton: Presumably, the Chancellor could make a suggestion to His Majesty with regard to the generosity of this House?

Mr. Burden: This Bill applies to pensions and pension schemes governed by Statute, but I think my right hon. Friend would agree that there are quite a number of statutory funds not within the scope of this Bill, and the only question I want to ask is this. Seeing that these people, responsible for these funds, may wish to give the benefits equivalent to, or something like, the benefits provided in this Bill, will facilities be given to ensure that these benefits can be provided without the cumbersome legislation to give effect to these desires?

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think the Chancellor could possibly answer that under this Clause.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 5, 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Interpretation.)

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 7, line 32, to leave out from "Act," to the end of the Sub-section.
This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Pensions which may be increased under this Act.)

Mr. Hutchinson: I beg to move, in page 9, line 17, to leave out from "authority," to the end of line 31, and to insert:
in the exercise of their functions as such an authority.
I think that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has really dealt with the point which is raised by this Amendment. It is proposed that Part II of the First Schedule should be amended by omitting the words "solely in respect of local government service," and the long definition of "local government service" which follows. The purpose of the Amendment was to include within the scope of this Bill a number of persons who, although in one sense they had been serving local authorities, could not be regarded as being in the service of the local authority. They were employed by what I think the Chancellor described as "lump sum-ers."

Sir J. Anderson: They were paid out of a lump sum.

Mr. Hutchinson: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. I thought that the "lump sum-er" was the person to whom the lump sum was given. I should like to have the assurance of my right hon. Friend that it is intended to deal with the class of person who was employed, for example, by the officer of a local authority on the work of the local authority, although in fact, such persons could not be regarded as being in the service of the local authority.

Sir J. Anderson: I have given that assurance.

Mr. Burden: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he will, in Clause 4, cover those people referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson), who might, under the definition in the Schedule, be


precluded, persons employed, for example, by the Town Clerk in connection with registration who are brought into the superannuation fund?

Sir J. Anderson: That is the purpose of the provision.

Mr. Hutchinson: In view of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Authorised Increases of Certain Pensions.)

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 10, line 10, to leave out from "or," to "then," in line and to insert "has at least one dependant."
This Amendment and Amendments following are all consequential on previous Amendments, enlarging the definition of "dependant."

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 10, line 12, at the end, to insert:
(a) if the pension does not exceed one hundred pounds a year, the authorised increase shall be thirty per cent. of the amount of the pension.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: This deals with quite a different point.

Sir J. Anderson: It is consequential on what was announced on Clause 1.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 10, line 13, to leave out "does not exceed one hundred and fifty pounds," and to insert:
exceeds one hundred pounds a year but does not exceed two hundred pounds.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I want to raise a point of Order, for the convenience of the Committee. There are, from this point onwards, on the Paper a number of Amendments in the names of various hon. Members—some in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, some in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), and some in my own name and that of an hon. and gallant Member —dealing with the effect of that part of

the Second Schedule which lays down the amount of increase that there should be. In the Schedule as it stands there is a proposal that, up to a certain size of pension, the increase should be so much per cent., and that beyond that, in other regions, it should be a less percentage increase, and so on. I should be very glad, Mr. Williams, if you can indicate how you propose to enable us to debate the Amendments on the respective percentages. On this part of the Second Schedule of the Bill it might be for the convenience of the Committee to know on what Amendment the discussion should be raised.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): I am in some difficulty on this point, which is not a very easy one. There are several Amendments on the Paper. The next Amendment is in the name of the hon. Member who has put this point of Order to me; then there is one in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and one in the name of the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). These Amendments would seem, in themselves, to cover almost the same point, and there are two or three Amendments following which seem to raise the same point between 20 and 30 per cent. and 35 and 40 per cent., or whatever it may be, going very nearly to the bottom of the next page on the Amendment Paper. I am entirely in the hands of the Committee, and hon. Members may wish to divide on this or that Amendment, but I suggest to the Committee that it might be possible to cover these figures in the various Amendments in one fairly wide discussion. If the Committee agree to that, I think it will be permissible to do so, but I would like to be assured that we shall have only the one discussion, say, on the next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). which covers the other points of change of increase of pension. If the Committee agree, I will proceed on that supposition, but I want to be certain that the Committee agree to it.

Mr. Brown: I think that that suggestion would greatly facilitate the discussion of the Committee. The last thing that I want is to have half-a-dozen discussions on the same point.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Brown: I beg to move, in page 10, line 14, to leave out "twenty-five." and to insert "forty."
This Amendment and following Amendments, which stand in my name and in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) are designed to effect substantial increases in the percentage improvements in pensions proposed by the Government under the Bill. I take the difference between 25 per cent. and 40 per cent., which arises on this Amendment, as illustrating the general issue that there is between us and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That will probably prove as good a way as any of getting the issue clear. The Government propose to increase pensions up to a certain amount by 25 per cent. If the figure in Subsection 2 (a) of the Second Schedule is £150, the authorised increase shall be 25 per cent. of the amount of the pension, and if the pension exceeds £150 a year, the authorised increase shall be 20 per cent. The Government approach this matter with the 20–25 per cent. mentality. Their view is that something of that order would represent a fair increase for the pensioners with whom the Bill deals. It is well known to the Committee that there is between many of us, in this House and elsewhere, a deep division in principle about the whole approach which the Bill makes to the question of pensions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer takes the view, which we strongly repudiate, that the approach of this Bill is what properly might be described as "the grace and favour" approach; he does not admit that the pensioner has any legal claim, and he does not even admit that he has a moral claim. He thinks—and this governs his whole approach—that the case is adequately met by an amount of 20 to. 25 per cent, increase, accompanied by all sorts of reservations and disqualifications.
I am not blaming him for taking that line at the moment, although on the Third Reading of the Bill I shall attack him hard about it. I merely say that that is the approach of the Chancellor. The approach of others of us is that there is, if not a legal claim here, an overwhelming moral claim to have pensions regulated, now that the cost of living has risen, as they were regulated when the cost of living was going down. That is the great issue which dominates our respective approaches to this Bill. Although I am

moving to improve the amounts proposed by the Chancellor in his "grace and favour" approach, I do not accept that approach as being at all appropriate and right. I divided the Committee on that on Clause 2 of the Bill and I did not carry the Committee with me. There were very large numbers of Members on the benches opposite who had not heard a word of the Debate, but, seeing the Government Whips in their appropriate place, they went into the Lobby and voted down the claims of these old folk without knowing what the discussion was about. Hon. Members on this side of the House were caught in a situation which prevented them from doing justice to their position on these matters. Their difficulty was that what I might described as a trivial Amendment had been put down on this question of amounts by the right hon. Gentleman above the gangway, which the Chancellor very nimbly and swiftly proceeded to accept with alacrity, and the result was—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member really cannot go back into past history on a question which has been discussed in a previous Debate.

Mr. Brown: All that I say is, that there was on the Labour side of the Committee a trap. I argue that 40 per cent, is much more appropriate than 25 per cent., and I justify it by reference to the known facts of the cost of living after the stabilisation took place. It is from the stabilisation of pensions at a given cost-ofliving figure much lower than the present, that this whole issue arises. The actual cost-of-living figure at that time was 145 above the pre-last war level. The figure to-day is in the neighbourhood of 200—I think it is 201, but if I take it at 200 that is as near as makes no odds. We have a difference in the rise in the cost of living of something over one-third by reference to the Ministry of Labour index figure. But whatever else the Ministry of Labour index figure does, it does not reveal the rise in the cost of living. I vote, in the earlier stages of Debate, evidence from the Oxford Bureau of Statistics, and from publications of the Labour Party and other organisations, which shows that the real increase in the cost of living is not 30 per cent., hut very much nearer 60 per cent. I must point out to the Committee that at no stage has any Government spokesman


controverted those figures, nor, do I imagine, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He may even agree that the real increase in the cost of living is of that order. But we are confronted with a situation where he is going to make it worse, because he gave us fair warning in his Budget speech that he deliberately intended to allow the cost of living—

Sir J. Anderson: I think my hon. Friend probably does not wish to misrepresent me to the extent he has done in his statement. I made it perfectly clear not only in my Budget speech, but in my winding up speech, that there was no question whatever of my doing anything to put up the cost of living; if the cost of living goes up, it goes up in spite of me. If I am not out of Order, Mr. Williams, I would say that what I pointed out to the House when we were discussing the Budget, was that the cost of living was going up through causes, some of which were controllable and some of which were probably not controllable; that, carrying out the policy of the Government, I had been in the past, by artificial means, offsetting the effects of those increases; and I pointed out, as I point out again, that that process could not go on indefinitely. It would be as wrong, however, to say that I am the cause of a rise in the cost of living as it would be to blame a fire brigade because a fire breaks out.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that as an illustration the cost of living can be used in regard to these figures, but I am quite sure that neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer, nor anyone else, must go into the causes of the rise in the cost of living at the present time or in the future.

Mr. Brown: The last thing in the world I want to do is to misrepresent the Chancellor or anybody else. Really a good controversy is only possible between two men who do not try to misrepresent each other, and the whole Debate might have more colour if either of us tried to do that. But whether he is going to permit it or arrange it, whether he is going to welcome it or whether he is going to deplore it, there is no doubt that the cost of living is going up, and the Chancellor has just confirmed that. So I ask, in a situation where the real increase in the cost of living is somewhere perhaps 60 per cent. up since this stabilisation took place,

and where it is as certain as anything can be that the rise, whoever is responsible for it, will go still further—does the Committee think than an increase of 25 per cent. in the amount of these pensions is a fair and an adequate increase, and that 40 per cent., while still being modest, would not represent a nearer approach to rough justice?
The only other point I want to make about that is this. In an earlier discussion, where the same principle was involved of whether the increases proposed were adequate or not, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury opposed my Amendment, because he said he would be giving the soldiers more than was taken away from them. I want to make it plain that that is not so. The soldiers in this connection have suffered not one loss but two. Number one loss that they suffered was the actual reduction in the amount of their pensions, which took place in the process of consolidation. Loss number two is the loss sustained by the rise in the price level from that date until now. I affirm that the amount of the second loss is greater than the amount of the first, and that the soldier has the same claim to benefit, by a larger increase than is proposed by the Government, as have ex-teachers, ex-policemen, ex-civil servants, ex-local government servants, and so on.
I have an immense admiration for the intellectual qualities of the Chancellor, although to-day I shall attack some weaknesses in the fabric, especially, as I shall show later on, a tendency to Bolshevism deplorable in so orthodox a figure as the Chancellor. As I say, I have very great respect for his intellect and also for his capacity for finding appropriate quotations. He made a speech a little while ago in one of those Salute the Soldier weeks. It was a powerful oration and in it, somewhat to my surprise, he fell back on the poet Wordsworth for an appropriate quotation. It was not
Lives of great men all remind us,
though that would not have been inappropriate. The actual quotation he used was:
High Heaven rejects the lore
Of nicely-calculated less or more.
I thought that was a magnificent sentiment for the. Chancellor of the Exchequer to utter, however improbable, but I tell


him that high Heaven rejects the lore of nicely calculated less or more in dealing with these poor old servants of the State, and I ask the Committee to insist with me that this figure of 25 per cent. shall be increased to 40 per cent., and that the other figures shall be increased in the same ratio.

General Sir George Jeffreys: In supporting the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend opposite, I would like to stress that it is in no sense a merely factious Amendment; on the contrary, it is a serious effort to better the position of these small pensioners. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has stressed throughout that he will deal only with cases of hardship, and has refused to consider the restoration of cuts made in any but the lower grades of pensioners. This Amendment is aimed to deal with cases of real hardship suffered by the smaller pensioners. There are very many who have very small pensions indeed.
I am not sure if it is realised how many very small pensioners there are, particularly amongst those who retired, from whatever their service may have been, before 1914 or, in many cases also, before 1919. I will, if I may, give some instances based on actual cases within my own knowledge, a private in the Army after 21 years service, can retire on a pension in round figures of £47 per annum, that is, after a very intricate calculation of years and days of service. A warrant officer in the Army, after 21 years' service, can retire on a pension of approximately £91 per annum. A private of the pre-1914 period retired on £31 4s. per annum after 25 years' service, though I am bound to add that was increased by the Pensions Increase Acts of 1920 and 1924 to approximately £51 10s. per annum, at which figure it would stand now.
I would remind my right hon. Friend and the Committee that a private of the pre-1914 period would be an old man now, and certainly not capable of earning very much for himself. Another instance is that of a police sergeant, pre-1919, who retired on a pension of £54. That, by the Acts of 1920 and 1924 would be increased to about £81 a year. In addition, there are very many teachers and postal servants with very low pensions indeed and for those with £30—I admit that is exceptional—£40, and £50

a year, even an increase of 30 per cent. is a very small matter. For instance, on £40 a year an increase of 30 per cent. would be approximately £12 a year, making £52 in all. That, I submit, is a very small pension for the high cost of living in these days. This Amendment presses for a 40 per cent. increase in pensions not exceeding £100. For a private soldier with 21 years' service pension, the increase would be about £18 per annum, on a pension of £47, giving him a total of £65. Well, that is not very much, at the present high cost of living, on which to live.
If my right hon. Friend is going to say that 40 per cent. increase is an unconscionable amount, then I venture to say that the Act of 1920 allowed 40 per cent. increase in certain cases, and the Act of 1924, I think, gave a further To per cent. increase. Surely these incresaes are not excessive? I have here the case of a pre-war police sergeant who, with the increases of 1920 and 1924, has about £80 a year. With a 40 per cent. increase he would get about £112 a year, and he sees a post-1914 police constable—not a sergeant—getting a pension of £156 a year and in addition, of course, such further increases as he may get under this Bill. To ex-teachers with pensions of well under £100, it would be very galling to see their former pupils—possibly very recent and still quite young pupils—making very high wages indeed, possibly as the result of what those teachers had taught them but very often with no more qualifications for making those wages.
The fact is that it is all these recent increases in wages which make pensioners feel their lot much more bitterly, and which, if I may say so, offer a striking commentary on the Chancellor's admonitions as to the danger of inflation if pensions are raised more than he proposes. His statement as to the unfair burden on taxpayers, especially those with small fixed incomes, if any greater increases than those proposed are made, and also his recent statement as to a probable increase in the cost of living to 30 per cent. above pre-war, has a hearing on this case of the small pensioners for, while it was difficult for them when this Bill was introduced and before that statement had been made, it is going to be much more difficult for them when the cost of living has risen higher than it is at present.
I do plead for these small pensioners, many of whom find it very hard to get along in view of the increased cost of living, and will find it still harder in future, in view of the prospective increase which has been foreshadowed by the Chancellor. Particularly is this so with such people as retired warrant officers and those who have been commissioned from the ranks or the lower deck. I have no hesitation in saying that these men were, in their day, the backbone of their Services. Now they are, in many cases, doing valuable work, in their retirement, in local life and local government. They and the many retired teachers and policemen have the right to a reasonable standard of living, something better than the lowest standard, especially when, with advancing age, they find it more difficult to earn money. They also have a greater need of some modest comforts, which they can hardly afford on the barest minimum of subsistence. I would stress again that they are on a different footing to others who have fixed incomes, however small these fixed incomes may be, for they are ex-servants of the Crown arid the Government have a definite and special responsibility for them, which is quite different from their responsibility for any other classes of the community. If the advance asked for in the Amendment can be granted I am quite sure that it would prove a great help to these small pensioners, and particularly to those people I have mentioned. Therefore, I hope the Chancellor will riot turn down this plea out of hand, or consider that an increase of 40 per cent. is either unprecedented or unreasonable.

Mr. Maxton: I wish to associate myself with those who are pressing the Chancellor for a more generous percentage on the lower rate of pension. I myself was in favour of the insertion of a minimum but when the Financial Secretary saw me privately on that point and made out what was a very strong case against the Government's acceptance of a basic minimum, I accepted his argument and I now fall back on the demand for a more generous percentage on the lowest scales of pension. When the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) spoke about old-established Service pensioners it reminded me of a story told to me yesterday by an hon. Member

opposite. This story concerned a soldier who, when an officer asked him at dinner time if there were any complaints, said that the meat was bad. The officer of the day smelt it and tasted it and said, "Bad? Let me tell you that many an officer in the Crimean War would have been glad to eat that meat." "Yes," said the soldier, "but it would have been fresher then." It seems to me that a pension established at the time of the Crimean War or the Boer War, while it may have seemed an attractive allowance at that period, has become a little flyblown with the economic changes which have taken place in industry since then.
Let me cite, once again, the particular case I have always had in mind, that of the widow of a police sergeant who lives on 10s. 5d. a week and endeavours to keep up, and does keep up, an appearance in the community in which she lives. The Financial Secretary in disposing of that case on the Second Reading of this Bill, with a wave of the hand, said that she would have an ordinary pension as well. How does she get an ordinary pension? She does not; her income is only 10s. 5d. a week. She has no entitlement to ordinary old age pension because her husband was not insured for it; he was in the Police Superannuation Fund, which gave him a certain pension so long as he lived. His widow does not come into the ordinary health insurance pension scheme unless she earns the right to it in her own life. She does not get a pension at 70 years of age, even, without having an investigation into her means, into what little money she may have saved or what little property she may have. Perhaps she is 56 or 57 when her husband dies, so that she has to live until she is 70 before she can approach the State for any other allowance out of public funds. Twenty-five per cent. on 10s. 5d. makes about 13s. That is what she will get and that does not represent even an approach to a miserable maintenance allowance, having regard to the general conditions which prevail at the present time.
There is another matter which operates in people's minds at the present time, when they are thinking of pension allowances and so on, namely, that the general circumstances prevailing now make it comparatively easy for old soldiers, ex-policemen or widows to get into a job,


either whole-time or spare time, which enables them to make an addition to their incomes. But we know perfectly well that that is only a war condition. Young, fit, people are being taken into the Services and there are many jobs now that disabled men, or people who are not properly fit, can get into, but who would be immediately dropped as soon as fully fit people were available. In considering this matter we should not be looking at it with reference to the economic conditions that are ruling now but with a view to what the life of these people is likely to be in a more normal economic social situation. I should not have thought that an increase from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. would have made such a splash in the general financial and economic pool of the nation as to rock the ship of State in any really disturbing way.
In conclusion, I would like to add a word on behalf of teachers, with whom I have been personally associated, and in whose welfare I am interested now, although I do not represent them in this House. The Chancellor represents a large proportion of them very directly in this House. Fortunately, there are not so many in Scotland who are on very low scales, because Scottish education authorities were given power to make their own arrangements with retired teachers and some did it very generously. Nevertheless, there are some who are living on a miserable level and I add my appeal to those which have been made for more generous consideration.

Sir J. Anderson: I think it is desirable that I should intervene at this stage, without in any way desiring to stand in the way of others who may want to speak, because the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Peters-field (Sir G. Jeffreys) have brought the Debate into a region which I think is not touched by this Bill. They have been arguing as if the purpose of this Bill was to bring pensions up to some sort of subsistence or maintenance level. The hon. Member for Bridgeton referred to a particular case and said that the pension in question did not even represent an approach to a miserable maintenance allowance. Well, I tried to make it clear on the Second Reading that this Bill is not concerned, and could not be, with the fundamental structure of our pensions system. The pensions we are dealing with

in this Bill are those granted under a system which does not involve consideration of subsistence at all: the pension is calculated arithmetically on a formula which takes account of retired pay and length of service. There are many pensions granted under such system which are small in amount and it is not, therefore, relevant to the provisions of this Bill to attack such pensions on the ground of their inadequacy as subsistence. Naturally, I recognise that there are people in the country who are in receipt of pensions which are wholly inadequate to their maintenance, just as there is a vast number who have no pensions at all.
What we have to consider in this Bill is to what extent, without any sort of legal or quasi-legal obligation, we can help pensioners of the State or local government—people who are deserving of consideration on the part of the Government—in view of the changed circumstances, since their pensions were 'granted. That is the approach. I have said before that they are uncovenanted benefits. Indeed pensions such as we are dealing with in this Bill would be a matter of contract, almost as much a matter of contract as a payment made by an insurance company in return for a premium. Circumstances may have changed between the time of making the payment available and the time when the arrangement was first entered into, and from what was then contemplated. That is the position. These people have served on certain conditions which entitle them to retired allowances, My hon. Friend declined to accept the position that these pensions represented deferred pay. At any rate, they are a mater of arrangement and they are payable for that reason.

Mr. W. J. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to draw an analogy between a State pension and an annuity purchased from an insurance company. Is there not all the difference in the world between the two cases? I submit that there is, because no insurance company that I am aware of has begun by knocking down the amount of the annuity. We cannot ask the insurance company to pay more interest, because it has stuck to its original contract, but the State has not. It has reduced the pension on account of the cost of living and it has not increased, it when the cost of living has risen.

Sir J. Anderson: I am bound to point out that the case of the pension which went up or down by reason of variations in the cost of living is specially dealt with in Clause 2, which we have disposed of. The parts of the Bill with which we are now dealing are concerned with the question whether, in view of the changed circumstances which have come about since the outbreak of the war, there is a case for increasing the pensions of various classes of public servants. I certainly approach this from the point of view that these are pensions granted on terms laid down in detail in Acts of Parliament and payable as of right at the appropriate rate, according to the terms of the Act of Parliament, to the persons concerned. In that way they are analagous to a pension secured by contributions. Indeed, there is a class of State pensions granted under the University Superannuation Scheme which is, in every way, very closely analagous to an annuity purchased by contribution. In view of what I have said, I think it will be clear that it is really beside the point to quote, as my hon. and gallant Friend did—I recognise how strongly he feels about the matter and the keen interest that he takes in retired servants of the Crown—particular cases of pension which are inadequate. This is not a scheme for making good any supposed deficiency in pensions, a deficiency which, according to his argument, has existed from the very beginning. It has not only come into existence because of the changed circumstances for which it is the purpose of the Bill to provide.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I gave them as instances only to show how low some pensions were, and that an addition of even 40 per cent. would not make them very high.

Sir J. Anderson: I am coming to that. In the first place he gave those cases as a background for a suggestion that he was going to make. He went on to ask himself the rhetorical question whether I was going to say that an increase of 40 per cent. was an unconscionable amount, having regard to the low level of these pensions. I am not going to say anything of the kind. What I am going to say is that we are here dealing with pensions payable under schemes the merits or demerits of which are not at the moment in question, and we are considering what increase in such pensions is reasonable having regard to such moral claims as the

people in question may be thought to have on the Government and the change that has taken place in regard to the cost of living. When I introduced the Bill the highest increase proposed was 25 per cent. An Amendment in my name, which has already been accepted, increases that from 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. I proposed that increase and a corresponding increase lower down, on a review of all the circumstances shortly after the Bill had been introduced. I knew perfectly well the tendencies that were at work affecting the level of the cost of living and I had an opportunity of informing myself as to the general views of Members in regard to the Bill. I wanted to be as accommodating as possible, and I have been quite accommodating. I took account of what was done after the last war.
Let me take up the point my hon. and gallant Friend made when he said that after the last war a 40 per cent. increase had been granted. I can give a better figure than that. Fifty per cent. was granted, but in what circumstances? The cost of living, as measured by the index figure, had gone up by 155 per cent. and the corresponding increase provided in the Bill was one of 50 per cent. I am now dealing with a situation in which, according to the cost of living figure, there has been an increase of 29 per cent. I have proposed, after looking at the provisions of the Bill passed after the last war, that that should be reflected in the lower grades by an addition to pension of 25 per cent. I thought it was fair that such additions should be kept a bit below the actual increase in the cost of living as measured by the index. I cannot go into any question as to the validity of the index figure; it is the basis on which we work and we have to accept it for present purposes. But, knowing what I did about the tendencies at work, I thought I could justify putting the increase over the lowest range up from 25 per cent. to 30 per cent., and that I proposed in the Amendment that has been accepted. At the same time I raised the figure of 20 per cent. for the lower range of pensions to 25 per cent.
If I were to do what has been suggested I should not be incurring much additional expenditure. Additional expenditure is not the trouble to me in this connection that it is in other connections. What I should be doing would be something against which the right hon. Gentleman


the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) warned us in the Budget Debate. I should be encouraging a process by which prices and incomes chased each other up a vicious spiral. I could not possibly for the purposes of this Bill accept an Amendment which appeared to be anticipating further increases in the cost of living. I want everyone to join with me in doing everything possible to discourage further increases in the cost of living. I do not want to make it easy for people to be indifferent to increases in the cost of living, which must involve serious consequences for many people and which must bear hardly on many. I brought the lowest rate up to 30 per cent., though the increase in the cost of living at the moment, as measured by the index figure, is only 29 per cent. I ask the Committee to agree with me that, in doing that, I have adopted a considerate, a sympathetic and a generous course and that I could not possibly have gone further. The Committee will remember that in regard to this Bill the Government deliberately framed the Financial Resolution in wide terms to enable all these matters to be fairly debated on both sides, but I ask the Committee not to take advantage of that fact by pressing particular points unduly against the advice which, in the exercise of my duty, I feel bound to give the Committee.

Sir W. Allen: I support the Amendment. We appreciate what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done. We appreciate the fact that there is a Pensions (Increase) Bill at all. We appreciate the fact that he has himself decided to increase the 25 per cent. to 30 per cent., but I should like to reinforce the position that we take up by the Chancellor's own words:
I want to say, as regards the action we propose to take now, that in view of the Government attention must be concentrated on cases of real, grave hardship. That will be essentially the approach which the Government propose to make, that is, to take account, as in the legislation following the last war, of the position of the pensioner and to provide increases for the lower ranges of pensions in order, so far as may he practicable, to mitigate really severe hardship.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1943; col. 673, Vol. 395.]
Does the 30 per cent. carry out the Chancellor's words and the 'hardship cases that have been quoted? Take the case of a widow whose pension is £17 a year. With

the addition of 30 per cent. it may be increased to £20. Surely cases of that character ought to be specially considered. The Chancellor has argued that there are many ex-Government servants who have no pensions at all and that those who are getting this increase ought to be delighted that they have any pension. I was told about the widow of a postman who lost his life by being riddled with bullets in an ambush in the course of his duties. Surely these cases require an enlargement of the heart of the Treasury. The taxpayer always comes into the argument in cases of this kind. I wonder if there is any one of the 615 Members of this House who would object for a moment to an increase of 40 per cent. to a widow's pension who has only £17 a year. Where is there a taxpayer in the United Kingdom who would object to it? The Chancellor has taken up the attitude that 30 per cent. is ample and generous. There are cases which the Chancellor himself has described as cases of grave hardship. What Governments in the past have done in my opinion this Government in the present can do. If the Government of past years could increase by 50 per cent., surely the present Government can increase by 40 per cent.
There is another question I would like to ask. The pension of a constable was raised to £70 a year by the Acts of 1920–24, and the individual had 12 years added to his pension. If the Government of that day could take that action, surely it is not too much to ask the present Government to do something similar and not to make all these excuses for a 30 per cent. increase. We appreciate any increase at all, but the Chancellor's words show that he recognises that there are cases of the gravest hardship. He must realise that 30 per cent. does not meet these cases. The proposed increase to 40 per cent. will relate only to cases of hardship which have already been recognised as such by the Chancellor and by the Treasury. This is an opportunity for them to do something genuinely honest for poor people who are living on such miserable pensions. It is an opportunity which will not occur again, at any rate in my lifetime, to give to these ex-soldiers, ex-policemen and their widows something to which they are entitled.

Mr. McEntee: As one who has been interested in this question of pensions for a long time, I have had a good deal of con-


tact with such people as those for whom the last speaker was appealing. He has spoken on their behalf in this House on a great number of occasions. I want to tell the Chancellor that I have felt gratified with his attitude on this pension business right from the beginning. I am not dissatisfied with the action he has taken and, from personal contact and correspondence with a great number of people who are personally interested in the matter, I know that they are very grateful indeed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Everybody will admit that if the Government suggest an increase, somebody puts down a further claim from what the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) described as the abstentionist party—like my own—and the hon. Member himself used to be proud of it. For example, if we put down an Amendment for an increase of 5s., it is the easiest thing in the world to gain cheap notoriety by putting down another Amendment asking for 7s. 6d. That has been the practice in this House for a very long time. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) will be aware of that, because I think his party has practised it above all others in this House.

Mr. Maxton: It is the recognised technique of the Labour Party.

Mr. McEntee: The hon. Member may have learnt it from the Labour Party when they were in Opposition. I would not object to that, but he has practised it very assiduously since then. Circumstances are very different to-day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought in a Bill which previous Chancellors have been pestered to bring in but have refused to bring in, as the hon. Member for Rugby will be well aware. I am one of those who have been pestering Chancellors of the Exchequer and up to the time the present Chancellor took office we were met with a blank refusal. The Chancellor brought in a Bill giving terms which, if not generous, were at any rate something in the region of reasonable. He suggested an increase of 25 per cent. for lower paid pensioners. I have not been personally interested in the matter in any way, but I have been in touch with some people who have been personally concerned, and I know something of the negotiations that have taken place on the 25 per cent. and the possibility of an

increase. The Chancellor has just agreed to increase that 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. and the 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. We should be doing less than justice to him if we did not say, "We thank you for that additional increase to people who are badly in need," and I hope that the hon. Member for Rugby will take that attitude.

Mr. W. J. Brown: No, I do not.

Mr. McEntee: I only said that I hoped the hon. Member would do so.

Mr. Muff: He is an Oliver Twist.

Mr. McEntee: At any rate, I want to say, on my own behalf and that of other Members, to the right hon. Gentleman, "We thank you very much indeed."

Mr. G. A. Morrison: I wish to thank the Chancellor for the improvements he has made in the Bill. I am sure his proposals will be gratefully welcomed in many homes in the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has pointed out, correctly, that we have few teachers in Scotland whose pensions are less than £100. Most of them are in the pre-1919 group. I have pleaded their cause many times in this House, and in spite of what my right hon. Friend has just said, I am going to have one more try. I mentioned in the Second Reading Debate the case of one retired teacher, 93 years of age, whose present pension of £91per annum would have been increased by the original proposals of this Bill to 113; under the Bill, as amended, that figure will now be about £120. These people are now at least 90 years of age and some of them are more. Many are infirm, as I happen to know. I do not think that a 40 per cent. increase on pensions under £100 can be considered too great.

Mr. Lionel Berry (Buckingham): I have listened to all the speeches that have been made on this Amendment. I do not think there is any doubt that every Member of the Committee is in sympathy with the idea behind it, but I do not think we are now discussing whether these pensions are adequate or just. I feel that the Chancellor has already made concessions which should be, and are, appreciated —as I know—by the pensioners themselves, and that the Committee would be


ill-advised, because of that fact, because of the concessions and because of the principle at stake, to accept the Amendment.

Division No. 19.
AYES.



Adamson, Mrs. Jennie L. (Dartford)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Greenwell, Colonel T. G.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir d. (So'h. Univ.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Petherick, Major M


Apsley, Lady
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Islington, N.)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Guy, W. H.
Peto, Major B. A. J.


Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Beaumont, Maj. Hon. R. E. B. (P'ts'h)
Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Beechman, N. A.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Price, M. P.


Benson, G.
Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.
Pym, L. R.


Berry, Hon. G. L. (Buckingham)
Hepburn, Major P. G. T. Buchan-
Quibell, D. J. K.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Hinehingbrooke, Viscount
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Blair, Sir R.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reid. Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Blaker, Sir R.
Howitt, Dr, A. B.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Bossom, A. C.
Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)
Ritson, J.


Boulton, W. W.
Hutchison, LI.-Com. G. I. C. (E'burgh)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Bower, Norman (Harrow)
James, Wing-Corn. A. (Well'borough)
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Salt, E. W.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Jennings, R.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. (Stl'g &amp; C'km'n)
Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k Newington)
Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h &amp; Selk'k)


Bull, B. B.
Joynson-Hicks, U.-Comdr. Hon. L. W.
Shakespeare, Sir G. H.


Burden, T. W.
Keeling, E. H.
Shephard, S.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Cary, R. A.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Lancaster, Lieut.-Col. C. G.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Lawson J. J. (Chester-le-Street)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Charleton, H. C.
Lees-Jones, J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Chater, D.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Levy, T.
Storey, S.


Cluse, W. S.
Lewis, O.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Cobb, Captain E. C.
Linstead, H. N.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Conant, Major R. J. E.
Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)
Studholme, Captain H. G.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Loftus, P. C.
Suirdale, Viscount


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Longhurst, Captain H. C.
Sutcliffe, H.


Culverwell, C. T.
Lyle, Sir C. E. Leonard
Sykes, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. Sir F. H.


Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)
Mabane, Rt. Hon. W.
Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)


Davison, Sir W. H.
McCorquodale, Malcolm S.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


De Chair, Capt. S. S.
Macdonald, Captain Peter (I. of W)
Teeling, Flight-Lieut. W.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McEntee, V. La T.
Thomas, I. (Keighley)


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Drewe, C.
Mack, J. D.
Thorneycroft, Major G. E. P. (Stafford)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Tinker, J, J.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
McNeil, H.
Touche, G. C.


Dunn, E.
Manningham-Buller, Major Ft. E.
Turlon, R. H.


Eccles, D. M.
Marlowe, Lt.-Col. A.
Viant, S. P.


Ede, J. C.
Mathers, G.
Wakefield, W. W.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Medlicott, Colonel Frank
Wardlaw Milne, Sir J. S.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Watkins, F. C.


Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Watt, Brig. G. S. Harvie (Richmond)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mills, Colonel J. D. (New Forest)
Wells, Sir S. Richard


Findlay, Sir E.
Molson, A. H. E.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Foster, W.
Montague, F.
White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)


Frankel, D.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
White, H. (Derby, N.E.)


Fraser, Lt.-Col. Sir Ian (Lonsdale)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)


Furness, S. N.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, W.


Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.
Muff, G.
Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Gammans, Capt. L. D.
Murray, Sir D. K. (Midlothian, N.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gates, Major E. E.
Murray, J. D. (Spennymoor)
Wootton-Davies, J. H.


Gibson, Sir C. G.
Naylor, T. E.
Wright, Mrs. Beatrice F. (Bodmin)


Glanville, J. E.
Neal, H.
York, Major C.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)



Grant-Ferris, Wing-Commander R.
Nield, Lt.-Col. B. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Oldfield, W. H.
Mr. W. M. Adamson and




Mr. A. S. L. Young.




NOES.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Lipson, D. L.



Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
McGhee, H. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


Cove, W. G.
MacLaren, A.
Mr. W. J. Brown and


Granville, E. L.
Maxton, J.
Mr. G. L. Reakes.


Lawson, H M. (Skipton)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Universities)

Question put, "That 'twenty-five' stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 10.

Amendments made: In page 10, line 16, leave out "one hundred and fifty," and insert "two hundred."

In line 19, leave out from "and," to "then," in line 20, and insert "has no dependants."

In line 21, at the end, insert:
(a) if the pension does not exceed seventy-five pounds a year, the authorised increase shall be thirty per cent. of the amount of the pension.

In line 22, leave out "does not exceed one hundred," and insert:
exceeds seventy-five pounds a year but does not exceed one hundred and fifty.

In line 25, after "one hundred," insert "and fifty."

In line 30, leave out from "has," to "to," in line 31, and insert "at least one dependant."

In line 31, leave out "two hundred and fifty," and insert "three hundred."

In line 33, leave out "one hundred and seventy-five," and insert "two hundred and twenty-five."

In page 11, line 6, leave out paragraph 7.—[Sir J. Anderson.]

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: I beg to move, in page line 30, at the end, to insert:
For the purpose of this paragraph the death or disablement of any person shall be treated as attributable to service in His Majesty's naval, military or air forces, if it is wholly or partly due to any wound, injury or disease which has been caused or aggravated by such service.
Not all the pensioners under this Measure have disability pension disregarded. That has been a matter of complaint, but I am not going into it now. But those under Clause 2 have their disability pensions disregarded in deciding how much pension they are to receive. It is important that the kinds of disability and the classes of persons who receive disability pensions, shall be properly defined, and I do not think the words of the Bill as at first drafted made it clear. It is the practice since the last war to regard those whose disabilities are aggravated by war service as being in the same position as those whose disabilities are attributable to war service. To make it clear that the ordinary definitions used in the pensions code are applicable in this Bill, I have put down these words. I

hope that the Chancellor will be willing to put them in the Bill.

Sir J. Anderson: I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. W. J. Brown: It would be ungenerous not to recognise that some changes have been made in the Bill during the Committee stage which snake it somewhat less bad than it was before. We have adjusted the ceilings, we have improved the conditions of benefit, as regards dependency, we have increased somewhat the amount of pensions. But these changes do not make what was a bad Bill into a good Bill. This remains an ungenerous and a bad Bill. That is true whichever of the two angles of approach we may adopt to the problem with which the Bill deals. I said before that there were two angles of approach which might he adopted. One was the angle that nothing but an act of charity was called for, and the other was that an act of right ought to be done. If this is an act of charity it is a very inadequate act of charity. But, from the beginning, I have held, and I still hold, that that is the wrong approach to the problem. The right approach is that since, by direction of the House of Commons, from 1922 to 1935 pensions were brought down year by year, as the cost of living fell, they ought to have gone up, in corresponding measure, as soon as the cost of living began to rise. The turning point was in 1935. It has taken us nine years to get to this Bill. When the cost of living began to go down in 1921 and 1922, this House insisted within three months, that pensions had to come down; but, while the cost of living has been going up, we have been content to leave this matter for nine years. And when we came to deal with it, we dealt with it not as a matter of right, but as an act of charity, of "grace and favour."
I was interested to see what arguments would be produced by the Government for the extraordinary disparity between the


line that they took then and the line they are taking now. I can gather only two indications of the mind of the Government. One is that the Government are afraid of inflation. They are suffering from what has been described as emphysematophobia, the fear of inflation, and they are also suffering from another disease called cardiac sclerosis, or hardening of the heart. Whatever be the fears of inflation, they do not arise specifically on this Bill. The total cost of the Bill is £6,000,000 or £7,000,000, including the cost of the Amendments that we have made in Committee. I can conceive that the issue of inflation might arise when vast sums of public money were being spent on "on cost" war contracts but we heard nothing of it then. When millions of men had their rates of pay increased, when we discussed the pay of the Army a few weeks ago and the fear of inflation was advanced by the Chancellor, pretty well every economist in the country wrote to "The Times," and asked him to stop talking nonsense. Then we had a new definition by the Chancellor. He now distinguishes between "inflation" and "vicious inflation." I cannot imagine that the £6,000,000 involved in this Bill can be brought under the head of vicious inflation.

Lieutenant-Commander Joynson-Hicks: Is the hon. Member not referring to the argument of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War?

Mr. Brown: Yes, the argument was advanced by the Minister of War. It was reinforced, however, by his colleague in the Treasury. Although the issue of inflation may arise, it does not arise on this Bill, and I discount that as the real key to the Chancellor's attitude.
The second justification was one to which I attach very great importance. The other day, when we were discussing this matter, I put the point—which I have put over and over again in this House—that when the cost of living Was coming down the Government forced pensions down, but now that it is going up they repudiated any connection between pensions and the cost-of-living figures. The explanation which the Chancellor gave us was that it was not this Government that tied up pensions and cost of living; it was an earlier Government. Now if there is one

asset which the Chancellor possesses in Britain, it is not merely his magnificent intellectual equipment, but the appearance he has of solid orthodoxy. If ever that reputation for solid orthodoxy became endangered, the consequences for the Chancellor would be very grave indeed. But it often happens that things are not what they seem, that beneath the exterior of a saint there may live the soul of a sinner.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I find it very difficult to see what the interior or the exterior of the Chancellor has to do with the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will stick to the Bill, and not go too much into outside topics.

Mr. Brown: But the doctrine advocated by the Chancellor is a doctrine which could be destructive of social order in Britain, for if one Government can repudiate the actions of their predecessors, what becomes of the doctrine of continuity of responsibility? Suppose this Parliament were to nationalise the mines, and agreed to pay the mineowners an annuity by way of compensation, and another Government refused to pay.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That would be quite outside the scope of this Bill. We can only deal with what is in the Bill, not with suppositions of that kind.

Mr. Brown: It is not a supposition; this is what happened. One Government in Britain tied up pensions with the cost of living. That is a fact.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was not disputing that. It was the hon. Gentleman's supposition with regard to the mines that I stopped.

Mr. Brown: It does not matter what. illustration I take, the case remains the same. From the point of view of the Civil Service, there is not one Government to-day and another Government tomorrow. There is only "the Government," with continuing responsibility. And it is wrong that a civil servant should not be able to rely on the word of the Government of the day. If he makes a contract with the Government, he should be able to rely on that contract being carried out, and lie should not be told by any Government, "We did not make that contract; we repudiate it." That is, in the strict


sense of the word, Bolshevism. My affection for the Chancellor leads me to warn him of this crack in the superstructure of his respectability. I take a grave view of this matter. The old servants of the State to look to this House, as they have a right to do. They have received no justice, and very scant charity, and I think the effects are going to be very bad.
This is regarded as an act of charity to the civil servant, but I think that when he reads the results of our deliberations he will take a very dim view of the amount of charity that is being extended to him. There is also the effect on the serving public servants, because some day they will be pensioners too. And they will draw conclusions as to the sort of treatment that they are likely to experience later on. I take the view that this Bill is mean and ungenerous, and that not all the alterations we have made in Committee have turned it into a good Bill. I have heard no argument to convince me that the Government view is anything but wrong, and I regret that, after the pensioners have had to wait for over nine years before we give them any help, we should fail, at the end of those nine years, to produce anything but this unjust, mean, and ungenerous Bill.

Sir J. Anderson: I rise to try to bring some comfort to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), who is so gravely disturbed by what he considers, with due respect to the hon. Gentleman opposite, my backsliding. My hon. Friend accused me of repudiating a decision of a previous Government. He said that that was unorthodox, dangerous, arid almost revolutionary. What I have done is to adhere firmly to the decision of a previous Government about the stabilisation of pensions and salaries. The Government which was responsible for the introduction of the sliding scale was also responsible for the supervening stabilisation. That is what I have adhered to and that is what I have been criticised for not departing from in a very unorthodox fashion. That is all I have to say on that point. No one would be more eager than I am to ensure at all points that faith is kept by Governments with public servants, but it is sometimes possible to keep faith without repeating mistakes; and I am anxious to avoid what I think

is now recognised as having been a mistake on the part of previous Governments in taking too light a view of increases in one direction following upon increases in another. In other words, not inflation—but vicious inflation.
I have only one other word to say. My hon. Friend was concerned to find an explanation of the action of the Government in introducing this Bill. I can give a simple explanation, which has the merit of being a true explanation. This Bill has been introduced in order that we may go as far as is consistent with present circumstances and with principles which must be maintained towards meeting grievances and relieving hardships on the part of very deserving classes of public servants.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I should be lacking in common courtesy if I did not say one word in gratitude to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the attitude he has taken in regard to the whole of this matter. I and many of my friends have been among those who have seen the importance and necessity of doing something for those civil servants—teachers, local government servants and others—who, having been pensioned or having had their pensions stabilised at a time when the cost of living was lower than it is to-day, were suffering at the present time. There is not a Member of this House who would not willingly increase the income of very large numbers of people, including pretty well all pensioners, who are receiving money from the State, but we have to face the responsibility both of those who are to receive and those who are to give. Bearing that full sense of responsibility in mind, we urged upon the Chancellor cases of hardship were involved in the stabilisation of pensions at a different period.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer took this into account and promised to bring in a Bill, but he warned us that it would be a limited Bill. He brought it in and he has not broken any of his promises because he did not promise much and has not done much. I asked on the Second Reading that, for good cause shown, he would be willing slightly to widen the limit which he imposed in the original draft of the Bill. On behalf of those Members who acted with me in this House, I put down three Amendments. The first Amendment was to make a class


at the bottom end of the scale who would get a higher rate than the Chancellor proposed. The second Amendment was to widen the description of the term "dependant" so as to make it nearly all-embracing; and the third Amendment was to raise the upper limit so that those who were within the limit originally proposed by the Chancellor would get the full benefit of the increase and some of those above the original limit would be brought within it.
The Chancellor accepted them all. He accepted the first in regard to the lowest grade absolutely as I proposed it. He accepted the second in a way which I think was quite as right as the way I had put it on the Order Paper. With regard to the third, he made an alteration which I believe cost the Treasury quite as much as my suggestion, though it benefited different people in a little different way, but, in effect, it did what I proposed. I should be lacking in common courtesy if I did not acknowledge that the Chancellor had met the case which I put forward, not by myself alone, but on behalf of those who acted with me in this House. Of course, the Chancellor has not met my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) because he has a different idea of what ought to be done. My hon. Friend thinks he is right and the Chancellor is wrong. We all think that about ourselves and our ideas, but that, no doubt, is a common failing of humanity. However, the fact is that we in this House have the double responsibility —the responsibility to those who pay as well as to those who receive. I think that the Bill on its Third Reading, with the acceptance of the Amendment by the Chancellor, does meet that double sense of responsibility felt by this House and, therefore, I commend the Third Reading to the House. I believe it will be carried unanimously, and I extend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer my thanks for the wise judgment and careful handling which he has exercised in dealing with this matter.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I am, I must confess, disappointed with this Bill, especially as regards the non-restoration of the cuts that were made between 1924 and 1934 except in the lowest ranges of pensions. I had ventured to think that such a restoration was a moral right if not a legal one, and the refusal of the Government

to make this restoration, especially in view of the rise in the cost of living, constitutes a grievance—and I think it is a justifiable grievance—among the pensoners concerned. It is certainly a grievance among officers retired under the 1919 Warrant who had their pensions cut on account of a fall in the cost of living and got no corresponding increase when it -Went up. Whether it is worth the while of the Government to leave this grievance unallayed, especially in view of the comparatively small sums involved, is for them to say, but the grievance is there and I think it is a great pity.
Next, there is the question of the disability pensions, wound pensions, being reckoned as income for the purposes of this Bill. It seems to me that the £52 per annum is too little to allow for these and that they are on a different footing from such things as workmen's compensation and National Health Insurance. Surely, wounds and disablement incurred in the service of the country ought to be reckoned on a different footing altogether from such payments as National Health and workmen's compensation. Very few of these disability pensions are large. It might be said, in fact, that none of them is on a generous scale, for the man who has lost his health or the use of his limbs in his country's service, should be entitled to some degree of comfort and freedom from anxiety as to his living. Moreover, I would remind the House that many disabilities get worse with increasing age, and pensioners become less able to earn any part of their living. On that point I and many hon. Members are disappointed in this Bill. The Treasury attitude always appears to be to give the very least amount possible and—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I should remind the hon and gallant Gentleman that on the Third Reading of the Bill he cannot bring forward what he thinks he would have liked to see in the Bill. He can only comment on what is actually in the Bill.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am merely saying that I am disappointed in the Bill and that the Treasury attitude has been, as it invariably is, so parsimonious. At the same time, I am thankful for small mercies, and I recognise that the smaller range of pensioners have received in-


creases under the Bill which will, undoubtedly, be very useful to many of them, even if such increases are not on as generous a scale as I, personally, could have wished. That range of smaller pensioners does include some of the pre-1919 officers—in fact, it includes many pre-1919 officers—and most, if not all, of pensioners of other ranks. They will all get something, although I regret that, in many cases, they are not getting rather more. I recognise, and I think many of us recognise, that half a loaf is better than no bread, and, to that extent, I am appreciative of what has been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the smaller pensioners under this Bill. However, I hope that at some future date, and not a far distant one, he may make up a little more to some of the others who have had deductions made in their pensions.

Mr. Burden: The vocabulary of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) is peculiarly his own, and I shall not attempt to follow him or to emulate his somewhat imaginative flights, but I must dissent from him in his description of this Bill as a mean Bill, a bad Bill, and so on. I want to join with the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) in expressing thanks to the Chancellor for the accommodating manner and spirit in which he has met the Amendments proposed from this side of the House. I express my regret, however, that the Chancellor could not go just one step further and extend equality of treatment to the local government service as compared with the Civil Service. There is a measure of accommodation for civil servants whose superannuation has been subjected to cuts owing to a fall in the cost of living, but no such provision is made for local government service. There is a further point which I raised in connection with the Clause. The description given to this Bill by the hon. Member for Rugby—that it was a bad Bill, a mean Bill, and so on—is controverted by the interest which people are taking in the Bill all over the country and the inquiries we are getting respecting its application. The Chancellor said that this Bill applies to persons whose superannuation or pensions are governed by statutory funds. I want to ask the Financial Secretary a point which I put

earlier in the Debate. How can these benefits, for which we express our appreciation, apply to members of other statutory funds? Will there be consideration of their position if and when the time arrives for that to be done?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry, but this point was too wide on the Committee stage, so it must be too wide for the Third Reading. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not reply.

Mr. Burden: I rather took it, when you interrupted me on the Committee stage, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it would be appropriate to raise it on the Third Reading.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, it is far worse now.

Mr. Burden: I can only throw myself on the generosity of the Financial Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask their consideration of the point I have made.

Major Nield: Most hon. Members have, I imagine, been approached by State pensioners of one sort or another for their help during the passage of this Bill. That has certainly been my experience. I mention it merely to emphasise the human importance of the decisions which we have to make under this Measure. My right hon. Friend, speaking a moment or two ago, recognised the human importance of these matters, and I do not think that it is any exaggeration to say that the decisions made here may make all the difference between, on the one hand, a feeling of hopelessness and of being cast upon the scrap heap, and, on the other hand, the contented enjoyment of well-earned leisure. I welcome the measures in this Bill for increasing the level of State pensions in certain directions and for certain sections of pensioners. I welcome particularly the decision of my right hon. Friend to widen the limits within which those increases may be allowed. During the Committee stage one was rather deterred from mentioning specific cases, but I do wish to call the attention of the House to one case. A constituent saw me not long ago with this history. He started his career as a teacher in 1884 and his salary was then £10 a year. It was quite a long time before it rose to £12 10s., and it was, indeed, not until he was over 40 years of


age that he was earning £3 a week. I feel that it will be recognised that such a man has rendered a great service to the State and that, when the time comes for his retirement, a pension of reasonable dimension has indeed been earned.
During the discussions on this Bill much has been said as to the qualifying conditions for increased pension, in other words, the means test. In this connection, I would make this point—that, if the means test has to remain, as it does remain in this Bill, it must be looked at from two points of view. There are the widely divergent cases of pensioners who may be in a position to earn quite considerable weekly sums, and, at the same time, having their pensions, and others who are not able, by reason of disablement or otherwise, to earn anything. I know of the case of a Post Office official who had to retire some years ago through chronic asthma with a pension of 30s. 10d., and who is unable to add to his income in any way. I feel that the Government will keep in mind the great distinction between those who can and those who cannot supplement their pensions by earnings.
In the Explanatory Memorandum attached to the Bill in the first instance, it was promised that, so far as Service pensions were concerned, the appropriate amendment to the Royal Warrant and other instruments would be made. From certain Amendments put down during the Committee stage, some of my hon. Friends appear to have doubted whether that would be done. I do not share that doubt. I feel quite certain that the Royal Warrant and other instruments will be so amended, and without delay. I conclude by expressing two hopes. The purpose of the pension increases in this Bill is to meet an increased cost of living in cases of special hardship. The first hope I wish to express is that, should the cost of living further increase—and one hopes, indeed, that it will not—this question may be again reviewed. My second hope is that, in any event, at some opportune time, it may be possible to institute a wide inquiry with a view to making just and generous provision for those who have served the State faithfully and well.

Mr. Tinker: There is one feature about this Bill which I should like to mention, and it is a commendable feature. It concerns the question of the time of payment. The Bill was intro-

duced or printed in February, yet the date of payment is to go back to 3rst December, 1943. It is a rather unusual feature, upon which I think I ought to comment, because it has not often happened here. It has always been recognised in the past that, when a Bill is on the Statute Book, payment does not cornmence till then. Parliament has seen wisdom, by providing that, when there has been an agitation for some change that can be dealt with immediately, it should not be necessary to make people wait for six or 12 months. Take the present instance. It will be five months from the time the Bill was introduced to the time when it goes on the Statute Book, but the people concerned will get five months' back pay. That is very pleasing to me.
We had a long controversy on another matter on which we could not get back payment, because all the cases could not be reviewed in time. Therefore, I am very pleased that our efforts do impinge on Parliament and make it recognise that justice should be done. I commend this Measure because it recognises that principle, and also because it tries to redress many genuine grievances that ought to have been redressed long ago. I would have liked to support some of the Amendments, but we had made an agreement with the Chancellor on certain points which he accepted. In those circumstances it would have been unwise to vote on the Amendments after we had got the Chancellor to stretch a point in our favour. The Bill is a big step forward which ought to be welcomed by the House.

Mr. Norman Bower: I would also like to congratulate the Chancellor on the manner in which he has handled this Bill. I was one of those who expressed a view on the Second Reading that the Bill did not go far enough, either as regards income ceiling or the percentage increases proposed. I then said that I could only give a frigid welcome to it. I am glad to say that, as the Bill has progressed, the temperature of my welcome has undergone a steady and continuous rise, until now it is quite warm. The Chancellor has met us, with regard to both these points, if not handsomely, at any rate, spontaneously, and with somewhat unusual readiness, which one is not accustomed to associate with his Department and for which we are duly grateful. In its final form the Bill will


undoubtedly do a good deal to relieve hardship, which, I have come to the conclusion, is a perfectly proper and primary objective for a Bill of this nature. As we have been reminded by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), we have to think, not only of the people who will receive the increase, but also of the people who have to pay. We ought to bear in mind that, where increases are given under this Bill, they will have to be paid for, ultimately, by the general body of taxpayers, which includes many people who have to live on very small fixed incomes and who are not State pensioners at all, and to whom, therefore, the provisions of a Bill of this sort can have no possible application.
I think, however, that it would be wrong to seek to do more in this Bill than to alleviate hardship. Many of these pensioners who come under the second scheme are getting back the whole of what they have previously lost, and that does not leave any cause for complaint on either ground. With regard to the first scheme, I am glad that the Chancellor has stood his ground and retained the principle of what is called the means test, or the upper income limit, because the great majority of the pensions under the first scheme were never paid on a sliding scale basis. Therefore, as we have already been reminded a number of times—though some hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), are still inclined to forget it—the increase which these pensioners receive will be in the nature of an uncovenanted benefit. If we are to retain the principle of the means test in the cases of people who receive other forms of uncovenanted benefits, such as the supplementary old age pension, it would be wrong to treat these pensioners in any different way. While I would not go so far as to say that this Bill will abolish all hardship among these people—I am certain that it will not do that—it will, at any rate, be a considerable help to many unfortunate people who have deserved well of their country and who are to-day finding it very difficult to make ends meet.

Mr. Gallacher: I was interested in some of the discussions that have taken place on this Bill. I always

marvel at the glibness and smugness with which wealthy, comfortable, well-fed Tories on the other side can talk about maintaining the means test. What miserable creatures they are. What lack of humanity.

Mr. Bower: I imagine the hon. Member was referring to me. What I said was that, if we are to maintain the principle of the means test in the cases of people receiving uncovenanted benefits, it will be wrong to treat these people any differently. I was not saying whether we should retain the means test or not.

Mr. Gallacher: I am in the memory of the House. The hon. Member said "I was glad the Chancellor has decided to retain the means test—

Mr. Bower: In this Bill.

Mr. Gallacher: If the hon. Member had any understanding of it, he would be horrified with the operation of the means test.

Mr. Bower: I do know.

Mr. Gallacher: The Chancellor, representing the Government, is in this Bill carrying through an obligation to servants who have demonstrated their loyalty in the particular positions in which they have been placed. In carrying out their obligations, they cannot help realising the difficulties that confront these people in the new circumstances that have arisen. The Government recognise that they ought to do something about it, but, because these people are not wealthy patrons of the Conservative Party or wealthy landowners, when they do attempt to do something about it they are as mean as they possibly can be. I had intended to vote on one of the Amendments put down, but certain of my Labour advisers here informed me that a concession had been made by the Chancellor and I accepted their advice not to vote, as I very often do. When I go wrong in this House, it is of my own volition, not when I accept advice.
Nevertheless, I recognise the fact that this is a question that is approached, not in a spirit of generosity, not in the spirit of actually freeing these one-time servants from worry and hardship, but in the spirit of meeting an obligation with the absolute minimum of expenditure. That is the sort of idea. I heard that the hon.


Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) said something about the Chancellor of the Exchequer being a Bolshevist in his approach to the question of stabilisation. The hon. Member for Rugby, by accusing the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Bolshevism, was, in the eyes of the Tories opposite, putting the badge of respectability on himself. The Tories are asked to recognise him as being no Bolshevik. He is a respectable citizen, unlike the Member for West Fife. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets up and tells us that he is not a Bolshevik and he is not employing Bolshevist methods. Did he have to tell us that? Is it not as clear as anything that the Chancellor is a Tory and that he would never employ anything but Tory methods?
The Chancellor says that we have to approach this question of increased pensions very carefully because of the danger of the spiral. It is like the reply one receives when one asks the Government a question that they do not want to answer and they say, "It is not in the public interest." So with wages or pensions. They come along and say, when this poor section or that poor section of the community get a few shillings a week, "There is the danger of a vicious spiral." This is caused, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by increasing pensions or increasing wages. The hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) said that those affected by the Bill who have given service to the country should be treated in a much more generous manner than others who have not given service to the country, such as, I presume, miners, engineers, and railway men. We are to suppose that these people do not give service to the country and that the country could get on quite well without them. That is the sort of attitude we always get towards the workers. The hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) said these pensioners felt that they deserved more when they saw what wages the workers were getting. Always we have the Chancellor talking about the spiral—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We have had the question of whether the Chancellor was a Bolshevist or not, and we have heard about wages and spirals. I do not think we should, on the Third Reading of the Bill, hear anything about miners, and we

should try to avoid comparisons as it would only widen the matter.

Mr. Gallacher: I am not going to talk about miners', engineers' or railwaymen's wages, although an amazing story could be told about these in relation to the wealth that exists in this country and the currency passing into other and less desirable hands. I want to challenge the Chancellor or his innocent assistant, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on what the Chancellor said on the Third Reading when talking about the question of stabilisation. It is never increased pensions or increased wages that affect stabilisation. It is the continuous chasing of profit that disturbs stabilisation and brings about inflation. If the Chancellor would give generous consideration to all the poorer classes in his various activities and finish off those who are continually pursuing profits, he would be able to deal with the question of stabilisation. If we got rid of every profit-monger in this country we would never have any difficulty about stabilisation. There never was inflation but what came through the pursuit of profit by people absolutely regardless of the interests of the community. There are good features in this Bill despite its limitations. One of them, referred to by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) is that the Bill is retrospective. I agree with the hon. Member for Leigh that it is a good thing that these pensions should he paid back for the past five months. I agree with him that, if it is good they should be paid to civil servants, it is good they should be paid in the same way to the old age pensioners.

Sir W. Allen: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) in the eloquence he has shown on the Third Reading of this Bill. I wish that he could have been present when we tried to get the pensions of the widows increased. I want to thank the Chancellor and the Government for having introduced this Bill. We realise that it is purely an increase of pensions and is not an attempt to create further precedents. From the beginning to the end it was emphasised that that was the object of the Bill, and I wish to thank the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for the attention they have given during the course of the Bill. The Chancellor was very helpful, although he has


not given us all we wanted. For many years I have tried to get the British Government to realise what these old pensioners deserve—military, Royal Irish Constabulary, teachers and others who will eventually benefit. On the Third Reading of a Bill, for which we have waited for so long, I thank the Chancellor and the Government for having introduced it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third Time, and passed.

NATIONAL LOANS BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

POLICE AND FIREMEN (WAR SERVICE) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That it is expedient, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session, to amend the Police and Firemen (War Service) Act, 1939, and in connection therewith, to amend the Fire Services (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1941, to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the expenses authorised by the said Act of 1941 to be so paid, which is attributable to any extension by the first mentioned Act of the power under the said Act of 1941 (as extended by any Defence Regulations, whenever made) to make regulations for the preservation of the pension rights of persons transferred to or joining the National Fire Service and similar matters, so as to include power to apply, whether or not retrospectively, the provisions of the first mentioned Act (including those provisions as extended by any Defence Regulation made by virtue of that Act), with or without modification, as if the rights and obligations thereby conferred and imposed had been conferred and imposed before the establishment of the National Eire Service.

Resolution agreed to.

POLICE AND FIREMEN (WAR SERVICE) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Grants in case of death or incapacity.)

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I beg to move, in page 5, line 8, after "period," to insert, "under the appropriate pension enactment."
This Amendment is purely drafting and reproduces in paragraph (b) of Subsection (5) on page 5 the words which will be found in paragraph (a) which had been accidentally omitted when the Bill was drafted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Consequential amendment of enactments.)

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 10, line 45, to leave out:
ceasing to serve as constables or firemen in order to be.

This Amendment and the following Amendment on the Paper are purely drafting Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 46, after "Regulation," insert:
having ceased to serve as constables or firemen in order to be so engaged or in order to serve in His Majesty's Forces, and to persons serving in His Majesty's Forces having ceased to serve as constables or firemen in order to be so engaged."—[Mr. Peake.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Medical Board.)

Where an application is made for a grant of a pension or gratuity under Sub-section (3) of Section two of this Act such examination to determine such claim shall be made by a medical board of not less than three duly qualified medical practitioners.—[Mr. Tinker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Tinker: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Sub-section (7) of Section (12) of the Police Pensions Act says:
If a member of a police force or pensioner refuses or wilfully or negligently fails, when required by the police authority, to be examined by some duly qualified medical practitioner selected by that authority, the police authority may deal with him in all respects as if they were satisfied by the evidence of such a practitioner as to whether he is incapacitated for the performance or duty or, as the case may be, as to the degree of his disablement.


That is in the first stage of the applicant's claim. Assuming that examination has taken place, it goes on to say, in Sub-section (8):
Where, for the purposes of this Section, any person is medically examined by a medical practitioner selected by the police authority, and is dissatisfied with his opinion on any medical question, he may appeal, in accordance with the rules made by the Secretary of State"—
and this is the important point—
to an independent person nominated by the Secretary of State.
It is on that point that this Clause has been founded. We argue that, when a man's future is imperilled, and whether he is entitled to a pension or not, one man should not be the sole person to decide it. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, which bears on this matter, thousands of cases were dealt with in this way which have caused great anxiety to our men. I am not questioning whether the decision is right or not, but referring to the impression left in the minds of those who appeal. Sometimes a man is examined perfunctorily, sometimes the examination takes a long time, but if the decision is against him he feels he has not had a fair deal. It would give greater satisfaction if there were three men to decide. In my own case I am not as normal on some occasions as others. It may be that the medical referee who is asked to judge a man may not be in the best of humours on that day; he may have been irritated by something and, therefore, unconsciously, he is not able to do the right thing by the man. Some men who go before the medical referee feel a sense of grievance and speak rather roughly when they are not getting satisfaction and, when one man gives a verdict against them, it leaves a feeling of irritation.
It would give much greater satisfaction to everybody concerned if we could have on the Statute Book, something like the method I have suggested, that not one man but three men shall decide whether or not a man is entitled to payment. It may be argued that they cannot always get three together but I think that several cases could be taken on the same day. Whether this is so or not, I do not think that we should burke the issue when it would give so much satisfaction to those who have to he examined. I do not know how the Home Office feel about it, but my colleagues and I have seen so many dis-

satisfied people that we were determined to bring it to the notice of the Committee at the first opportunity. It may be said that this is hardly the time to bring it forward but, if we allowed this Bill to go through without some protest, we should have to admit later that when this small Measure went through we did not protest, so we have taken this opportunity of trying to persuade the Committee that it should not be left to one man but that a committee of three should judge these cases.

Mr. Tom Brown (Ince): I desire to support the remarks made by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) in his contention that the Home Office should accept the new Clause standing in the names of himself and two other hon. Members. We are very often exhorted in the progress of legislation through this Assembly to let history teach us. On this occasion, I submit that we ought to let experience guide us in the future legislation which will affect the livelihood of men in the Police Force.
In our experience, since the passing of the Compensation Acts of 1906 and 1925, where we had to submit all cases in dispute as to partial or full incapacity to medical referees, we have found—and I am not saying this disrespectfully about the medical profession—a great deal of which we can complain. Invariably, when a man is referred to a medical referee, he carries with him all the medical evidence surrounding his accident, or it is sent to the medical referee so that when the man appears before him he has most of the evidence. Then he examines the man, but invariably we find that if one man has to determine the destiny of the workman or the policeman, whoever it may be, a feeling of dissatisfaction prevails in the mind of the man that he is not getting a fair deal. Therefore in place of a medical referee we would like a medical board consisting of three highly qualified medical men. The hon. Member for Leigh may not agree with me, but I would suggest that one of the three should be the man's own doctor, in order that he may be able to put all the medical evidence before the board to assist the man getting a square deal.
It will be remembered that in 1919 there was a departmental committee, known to us on this side as the Holman Gregory Committee, and when evidence


was submitted to that Committee, there was a very strong desire on the part of many witnesses, in the light of experience from 1906 onwards, that a medical board should take the place of the medical referee. Since 1925 our experience in that direction is even greater and we are convinced, whether it applies only 'to a small section of the community or to a large section, that we ought to see that the injured workman or the injured police officer gets a fair and square deal from the medical profession. It is on those grounds that I strongly support the hon. Member for Leigh in his desire to get placed on the Statute Book the provision of a medical board, one Member of which should, I think, consist of the man's own doctor in order that, when he submits himself for examination, he will have the consolation of having had a fair deal from the hands of the medical profession.

Mr. Foster: I wish to support this new Clause because of the principle involved in it. As has been stated, we have had considerable experience of dealing with cases under the Workmen's Compensation Acts which have been referred to a medical referee—the usual procedure laid down in those Acts. I venture to say that neither the Home Secretary nor the Under Secretary of State for Home Affairs is satisfied with that procedure. As a matter of fact, when the contemplated new Workmen's Compensation Bill is introduced in the House, I am certain that all those who have had experience of medical referees will try to have this principle embodied in that Bill. Generally speaking, the referee who is appointed is a man not even as well qualified perhaps as the workman's doctor, or the employer's doctor for that matter, to judge the facts. What happens under the Workmen's Compensation Act? The workman obtains a medical certificate setting out the opinion of the doctor as to the cause of his condition, and the employer also obtains a medical report. Those two reports are submitted to a medical referee who gives his decision upon them, which is final under the Workmen's Compensation Act. There is no appeal against that decision and there is general dissatisfaction amongst injured workmen because of what they consider to be an unfair decision by the medical referee. As a matter of fact many cases

could be quoted where a medical referee has decided that the workman has wholly recovered from the injury and is fit for his ordinary employment, yet that workman has broken down from that injury, and subsequent X-ray examinations have proved that he had not wholly recovered. The fact that he broke down when he attempted to resume work proves that was the case. Not that one is in any way casting reflections upon the medical profession, but that it is a question of whether the medical referee who examines a man has sufficient knowledge of the history of the case, and whether he can properly diagnose the cause of the trouble.
I do not think I quite agree with the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Tom Brown) that one of the three members of the proposed medical board should be the workman's doctor. In effect, that would reduce the board to two, for the practice now is to have three doctors—the workman's doctor and the employer's doctor to make reports, and the medical referee to decide on the evidence given in those reports. Therefore I would prefer three fully qualified medical men and surgeons who thoroughly understand the particular case referred to them. Owing to the general dissatisfaction prevailing in regard to medical referees under the Workmen's Compensation Act, we have attempted on occasions to try to have certain medical referees removed through the Home Office but we have never succeeded. I remember one case where the medical referee on industrial diseases gave so many decisions against the workmen that we took action to try to have him removed because he was going mental. Ultimately he did go mental, but, in the development stage of this mental instability, he was still acting as medical referee, and we were having any number of cases turned down. What I have just stated is no exaggeration.
In conclusion, I want to appeal to the Under-Secretary to have regard to the principle we are putting forward. I am certain it would give general satisfaction to the workman when he comes to be examined. If I may say so, the Home Office have accepted the principle in respect of a medical board on silicosis and pneumonoconiosis, because the medical board which certifies those cases is composed of three doctors who make a


thorough investigation not only into the industrial history but into the medical history of the case, before they reach their decision. I feel sure that if that principle could be accepted in this Bill it would result in justice being done to the injured workman, or at least the opportunity for justice would be far greater than if the decision is left to one doctor. Doctors, like lawyers, differ. If you submit a case to one doctor he diagnoses something different from another doctor, and it is just the same if you take legal opinion. I am certain that it is much better to have the opinions of three men on these questions rather than of one, and it is because of those reasons that I support the new Clause.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I would like to add a few words on this subject, which is familiar to all those who know the mining industry. It is quite true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Foster) has said, that perturbation has been caused by some of the decisions given by medical referees. We had one case where a man was certified for work. There were no grounds for appeal; the decision of the referee was final. Yet at the time we were making that appeal the man was back in hospital for a further amputation of a limb which had been injured. We shall be very disappointed with the new compensation proposals, when they come along, if the principle of a board is not accepted, because this principle has been accepted since the war started. We do not send men into the Services on the medical examination by one man alone. We laid it down that people should go before medical boards. If a man going into the Services has to go before such a board surely it is not unreasonable to ask that he should do so when it is a question of a pension. The only difference is that one is going in and that the other is going out.
We are not impugning the medical profession, but it is most unfair that the future of a man should be put into the hands of one medical referee. In matters of compensation we know that the doctors are handicapped by the law. The condition of the man, when he goes before the medical referee, is that which determines the issue of a certificate. It is not given to every man in the medical profession, however highly skilled he may be, to be able to take the responsibility

of making a final decision in these matters. I appeal to the Under-Secretary not to tell us that this principle is too big to be inserted in this Bill, because we are of the opinion that it is never too soon to begin this principle.

Mr. James Griffiths: I am sure that we all welcome this Bill because it brings relief to people who have been deserving of it for a very long time. I hope the Under-Secretary, if he is not in a position to give a favourable reply on this point now, will, at least, consider it, because a vital principle is at stake. I do not want to repeat the arguments which have been used by hon. Friends, but this practice of giving judicial power to one man—for that is what it means—is very old, and has never been accepted as satisfactory. Most of us could keep the Committee for a very long time giving our experiences of how very unjust and unfair it is to ask one medical man to give a decision in these matters, however honest the doctor may be—and we are making no charges against them at all. One of the worst examples which ever came before me as a trade union officer, and the worst case I ever heard of, concerned a man who was declared to be completely recovered from an accident, but who was subsequently found to have a fractured spine. That case could not legally be re-opened but the employer at once admitted that a grave mistake had been made, the case was re-opened and a settlement arrived at, although, in law, the man had no grounds for such action being taken. If a judge has a case before him in which there are difficult medical aspects it is seldom that he decides to give a decision without fortifying himself with expert medical evidence. Sometimes two medical experts are consulted. At some time in the not too distant future we hope that this whole question will be considered in another connection, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) on his usual Parliamentary vigilance in seeing that this did not go unchallenged.
We live in days of medical specialisation; there is a growing number of men in the medical profession who give special attention to special disabilities or diseases. Medical boards are composed of men with varying experience. Generally speaking, a sense of injustice is


caused to the average man who says, "Why should one doctor alone decide my fate and my future?" I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) is the only member of the medical profession in the Committee at the moment, and I am quite certain that he would never claim that his colleagues have so much knowledge of all the disabilities which man is heir to that they can come to a final decision on these matters by themselves. I see that my hon. Friend supports me, and if South Wales and North Wales can join together then I do not think the Under-Secretary will be able to refuse our plea. We shall never be content with a system by which the fate of any one person in the country is put into the hands of one other person, however eminent he may be.

Sir George Hume: I hope the Home Office will pay serious attention to the arguments which have been put forward to-day. Those of us who are in close touch with our constituents have often realised what strange decisions are sometimes come to by medical practitioners. How many men and women have been graded A.1 and taken into the Services who, in the course of a few days or weeks, have shown that they are very far from being in that position? The time is coming when a man's whole future should not be allowed to depend on a decision taken by only one man. Such a practice is not fair or right and leads to a tremendous amount of discontent.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): When I saw this Amendment on the Order Paper in the names of three of my hon. Friends, who have been long and honourably connected with the mining industry in Lancashire, I must admit that the idea crossed my mind that, possibly, the subject of workmen's compensation-would be mentioned. This Bill deals with a small and limited class of persons, namely, members of police or fire services who have joined His Majesty's Forces and who, in the course of their service, meet with disability or death. While I am not in the least surprised that my hon. Friends should take an interest in these cases I felt quite sure that they had rather wider issues at the back of their minds.
This Amendment would provide that in place of the single medical referee, who at present adjudicates on medical issues under the Police Pensions Act, 1921, and the Fire Brigade Pensions Act, 1925, there should be a medical board of three members, not in all cases of police or firemen, but in those cases to whom this Bill applies, that is to say, the members of those services who have joined His Majesty's Forces during the war, and in regard to whom the question of granting a pension as policemen or firemen subsequently arises. It is quite obvious that you could not limit the operation of an Amendment of this character only to the police or fire services. If such an Amendment were introduced into this Bill there would have to be further amending legislation dealing with the principal Acts affecting the pensions of policemen and firemen.

Mr. Foster: Why not?

Mr. Peake: My hon. Friends referred to the comparison with the procedure under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and I would draw their attention to one or two differences between that and the procedure under the Police Pensions Acts. In the first place, medical issues under the Police Pensions Acts are referred to a medical referee who is appointed by the Home Secretary to deal with a particular case. There is no medical referee, under the Acts dealing with police or firemen, who holds an appointment as such. An individual referee is appointed to deal with an individual case and I feel quite sure that if there was exception taken on any reasonable grounds to a particular referee who had been appointed my right hon. Friend would pay attention to the representations of the Police Federation or any other body concerned in the matter. That is the big distinction. Under the Workmen's Compensation Acts you have particular medical referees appointed for particular areas to deal with particular classes of cases and those referees hold their appointments year after year so that hon. Members get to know their individual methods of handling cases.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is it not correct to say that you could have two medical referees in one area?

Mr. Peake: Certainly. The Home Secretary has appointed specialist medical referees for dealing with every class of specialised industrial disease, and so forth.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Suppose a doctor was appointed and he felt that the case had some features on which he would like to consult one or two other medical men. Is it clear that he would be at liberty to bring them in to assist him?

Mr. Peake: What is clear is that the referee under the Police and Firemen's Pensions Acts is appointed ad hoc. A man specially suitable to deal with the particular case is selected by the Home Secretary and further—this is an important point—the man's own doctor is invariably allowed to be present, if he desires, at the examination by the medical referee.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: If his own doctor is a panel doctor, could he spare the time to go?

Mr. Peake: I am not sure whether that would be the case but no objection is taken to the man's own doctor being present if the man so desires. Whether the man's own doctor invariably attends I could not say without investigation.

Mr. Foster: That does not apply under workmen's compensation, does it?

Mr. Peake: No. I was pointing out the difference in procedure under the Police and Firemen's Pensions Acts and the existing practice under workmen's compensation. There is the further difference that these difficult technical issues in connection with industrial disease do not, generally speaking, arise in the case of policemen and firemen disabled in the course of their duties. The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. Griffiths) referred to the diseases of pneumoconiosis and silicosis. As far as I am aware we have not yet had a case of a policeman, even one standing at a very dusty point, contracting pneumoconiosis, and these difficult technical issues of medical science do not, generally speaking, arise. [An HON. MEMBER: "Suppose they do?"] Then, of course, a special medical referee is appointed. The existing system has worked well. It has been in operation, so far as the police are concerned, since 1921. I do not think anyone would demur from the proposition that, generally speaking, the opinion of three medical men is rather better than the opinion of one medical man.
At the same time the Act deals with a very limited class of case and at this

moment, as we all know, the medical profession is working under very great pressure. I do not think it would be the moment to increase by three times the number of doctors required to sit on these medical references. The point has been present to our minds in drawing up the scheme of workmen's compensation which is going to be described in a White Paper to be issued very shortly. Like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is unable to anticipate his Budget, I cannot, of course, anticipate what that White Paper is going to contain. I can say, however, for the reassurance of hon. Members that this point has been duly noted before and what they have said will be duly noted again, and the White Paper will, of course, contain as many features pleasing to all concerned as it is possible to incorporate. I hope with that explanation the Amendment will not be pressed at this stage.

Mr. Reakes: Is not the right hon. Gentleman prepared to admit that the principle remains the same whether it affects a small minority or a large majority? Further, is he prepared to tell the Committee that he believes in the infallibility of any single doctor or specialist?

Mr. Peake: I have already said that, broadly speaking, we all accept the proposition that the opinion of three medical men is better than the opinion of one, but that this is not the time, owing to the pressure under which the medical profession is working, to introduce this change in a very limited class of case.

Mr. Reakes: The fact that it is a limited section does not alter the fact that the principle is important, and an important principle is applicable to a minority to the same extent as to a majority. Furthermore, if the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to assure the Committee that he believes in the infallibility of any single doctor or specialist, he should be prepared to recommend support of the suggestion put forward by hon. Members.

Mr. Peake: I am not prepared to commit myself to the infallibility of any number of doctors however large it may be—three, 13 or 33. I really think I have already answered the hon. Member's question.

Mr. Tinker: I must take this to a Division. I am not satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's reply. He says it is a small matter and the Government want to deal with big issues, but the principle ought to be established that three is far better than one. If the principle is accepted, the right hon. Gentleman ought to accept the opinion of the Committee. The whole of his speech is in favour of it. This is one of the occasions when I think the Home Office ought to accept the wish of the Committee and make a change in what has been the established custom for a long time. It does not mean much to the Government but it means much to workmen and I must test the opinion of the Committee.

Mr. Baxter: I hope this will not be pressed to a Division. The Under-Secretary has stated the case clearly and very effectively. The strain upon the medical service makes this addition an unwise thing. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has often been fair and wise in not making an artificial division, and we should accept what the Under-Secretary has said.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We expect that we are going to have legislation in the near future in connection with workmen's compensation and we take it for granted that the single medical referee is going to disappear.

Division No. 20.
AYES.



Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)
Guy, W. H.
Shinwell, E.


Bevan, A. (Ebbw Vale)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sloan, A.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Kendall, W. D.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Brown, W J. (Rugby)
Kirkwood, D.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Buchanan, G.
Mack, J. D.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Charleton, H. C.
MacLaren, A.
Thorne, W


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Watson, W. McL.


Dunn, E.
Mathers, G.
White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)


Foster, W.
Maxton, J.



Gallacher, W.
Montague, F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—


Glanville, J. E.
Murray, J. D. (Spennymoor)
Mr. G. L. Reakes and


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Oldfield, W. H.
Mr. J. J. Tinker.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Islington, N.)
Ritson, J.





NOES.


Adamson, Mrs. Jennie L. (Dartford)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. J. G. (H'der's)
Donner, Squadron-Leader P. W.


Adamson, W. M, (Cannock)
Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Douglas, F. C. R.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh).
Brooke, H. (Lewisham)
Dower, Ll.-Col. A. V. G.


Apsley, Lady
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Bull, B. B.
Eccles, D. M.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Burden, T. W.
Ede, J. C.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Cadogan, Major Sir E.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Beechman, N, A.
Castlereagh, Viscount
Elliot, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Challen, Flight-Lieut. C.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


Bennett, Sir P. F. B. (Edgbaston)
Cobb, Captain E. C.
Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)


Benson, G.
Colman, H. C. D.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)


Berry, Hon. G. L. (Buckingham)
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Findlay, Sir E.


Blair, Sir R.
Culverwell, C. T.
Furness, S. N.


Boulton, W. W.
De Chair, Capt. S. S.
Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.


Bower, Norman (Harrow)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Gammans, Capt. L. D.


Bower, [...]dr. R. T. (Cleveland)
Denville, Alfred
Gates, Major E, E.

If so, it will be an anomaly to retain him in this Bill.

Mr. Peake: I should like to reinforce the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter). I am aware of what is in hon. Members' minds in regard to workmen's compensation and the forthcoming White Paper. We shall do all we can in the White Paper to please them, but I cannot go further at present and I ask hon. Members not to carry this to a Division. The members of the police and fire services are really not dissatisfied with the existing position. So far as I am aware, they have not asked for this feature to be incorporated and it will be a great mistake to go to a Division upon a matter in which the position is not unsatisfactory to those immediately concerned.

Mr. T. Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a promise straight from the shoulder that he will incorporate a board in place of a referee in subsequent legislation?

Mr. Peake: I have said I cannot anticipate the contents of the very important document which will be in hon. Members' hands within a very few weeks now.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 34; Noes, 140.

Graham, Captain A. C.
MacDonald, Sir Murdock (Inverness)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Grant-Ferris, Wing Commander R.
Macdonald, Captain Peter (1. of W.)
Silkin, L.


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Greenwell, Col, T. G.
McEwen, Capt. J H. F.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
McKie, J. H.
Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.


Hail, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Magnay, T.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hammersley, S. S.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. Oliver


Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Storey, S.


Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Hepburn, Major P. G. T. Buchan-
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Higgs, W. F.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sutcliffe, H.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mitchell, Colonel H. P.
Sykes, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. Sir F. H.


Hogg, Hon Q. McG.
Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)
Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'thm'tn)


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Universities)
Thorneycroft, Major G. E. P. (Stafford)


Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)
Muff, G.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. G. I. C. (E'burgh)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Turton, R. H.


James, Wing-Com. A. (Well'borough)
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Jeffreys, Gen. Sir G. D.
Ilfeld, Major B. E.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


John, W.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Waterhouse, Captain Rt. Hon. C.


Keir, Mrs. Cazalet
Petherick, M.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Key, C. W.
Peto, Major B. A. J.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)


Leigh, Sir J.
Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Price, M. P.
Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Levy, T.
Proctor, Major H. A.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C. (York)


Lewis, O.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Wootton-Davies, J. H.


Liddall, W. S.
Rankin, Sir R.
York, Major C.


Linstead, H. N.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)



Loftus, P. C.
Robertson, Rt. Hn. Sir M. A. (M'ham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


Longhurst, Captain H. C.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Mr. L. R. Pym and Mr. C. Drewe


McCorquodale, Malcolm S.
Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

WATER SUPPLY

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [3rd May]:
That this House welcomes the intention of His Majesty's Government, declared in the White Paper presented to Parliament, to introduce measures for the conservation and better utilisation of the country's water resources, the improvement of the administration of water supply, the further extension of public water supplies and sewerage in rural localities and the better management of rivers."—[Mr. Willink.]

Question put, and agreed to.

DOMESTIC WORKERS

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Beechman.]

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I do not make any apology for raising a matter which I think is of some importance, arising out of a Question which I put to the Minister of Labour a fortnight ago, concerning the present serious shorttage of domestic assistance in the households, institutions and hospitals—especially the hospitals—of this country. Nor do I apologise for raising the matter at a time when we are on the eve of great events in another connection, because its importance has been accentuated and aggravated in recent months. I have

called the attention of the Minister of Labour to it on more than one occasion in the last two or three years, but the position probably is more serious than it has ever been before. Many of our people are carrying great burdens, and have been doing so into what is now the fifth year of the war. They have done so without complaining, but I believe there is to some extent a tendency to take, advantage of that fact, and to take some of the burdens as a matter of course. I am sure that our people are prepared to bear any burdens which are absolutely necessary for the prosecution of the war right to the very end, but I certainly do not think they are willing, nor should it be necessary to ask them, to bear burdens which can be avoided.
The first point is that there is a great shortage of domestic help and that it is causing serious damage to the health of men and women in this country—certainly to the health of women. It affects all classes of the community, whether working or professional, in varying degrees. It affects women who are working on the war front in factories, in canteens, on Red Cross work and, especially, a large number of old and infirm people. It affects expectant mothers and mothers during and after their confinement, especially those who have other children. There is also a very great disparity, an almost flagrant discrimination between the way civilian life has been pruned down to the bone for the benefit


of the Services, while we are engaged in total war, and there is an absence of equality as regards domestic help between household and household.
No standard is laid down by the Ministry of Labour for domestic assistance of such a character, and I think the country has remarked upon it. My attention has been called to it as between street and street, household and household. On the one hand there is gross over-personnel and over-service and in other households no service whatever. I appreciate that in a great war there must be sacrifice, but there should be equality of sacrifice. In this regard, however, there is great inequality of sacrifice calling out loud. The nation is becoming conscious of it, and I hope therefore that the House will endorse what I say and that the Minister of Labour will appreciate the position, as I think he must.
It is also a fact that there is a very great scarcity of domestic help in institutions and hospitals, and there is a good deal of distinction as between institution and institution and hospital and hospital. I think the Ministry have given quite a considerable amount of help to some institutions and hospitals but have not been able to help others. They have tried to lay down some standard in regard to institutions such as they have not laid down in regard to private households. A letter appeared in "The Times" a short time ago, among a lot of letters on this subject. Some of them were written by quite eminent people. I would like to draw the attention of the House to a letter which was written by a very well-known man, Sir Leonard Hill, who is a great scientist and who is general superintendent of the St. John Clinic and Institute of Physical Medicine. He said that his own clinic and institute:
giving many thousands of treatments a year, has been left with one able-bodied porter, one old man and an old charwoman to do all the cleaning and other work. At Government offices nearby, half a dozen young men, acting as porters, may be seen any day hanging round the entrance, while eight at a time are seen fetching coal in a hand truck, to be used to warm the tenants of the flats and the members of the staffs in the offices. I myself, 77 years of age, and my wife 75, not very strong, have to do everything in our own house and garden. Of this I am not complaining but I suggest there should only be requisitioning of labour at the expense of civilians that is really necessary or justifiable.

We can all endorse the remarks of Sir Leonard Hill. Over and over again in our own experience we find instances. I was talking to a solicitor the other day; this is only one case. He had lost two sons in the war. In his own office he had lost two partners who had gone out to serve in the war. He had in his office two typists and a clerk instead of a staff of 13. He is a man of over 50, although he looked considerably older. His wife is very ill as a result of domestic anxiety and losses of the war. He has no domestic assistance of any kind in his household, so that, in addition to coping with a very busy professional life, and its harassing and increasing difficulties day by day, he has to make his own fires and cook his own food. He is completely unable to get any domestic assistance of any kind. I know the wives of two doctors who have broken down completely as a result of a similar position. The Ministry of Labour have tried to render assistance in the case of doctors' households, but in many directions they have failed to do it.
In the case of elderly people there are, in this country, most pathetic cases. I know of two people in the same house who are bedridden, and they cannot get assistance of any kind. Local institutions are full and cannot take them in. They have to get out of a sick bed in order to attend to the necessities of life. This problem extends to Members of this House. An hon. Member who is 70 years of age, who has a wife aged 68, and is a man with an immense correspondence, has 50 or 60 letters a day, and has no secretary. He gets up every morning to light the fire in his house because he has no domestic assistance. As against that there is unquestionably a gross waste of personnel in the Services at the present time. One does not want to do anything at the moment to try and cut down the Services of this country, but I do not think it would detract from the efficiency of the Services to take from them personnel where there is clear evidence that that personnel is wasted. Many of them are unfit for military service, and they would be very much better in civilian life and would pull their weight better. That is so in the women's Services as well. There are hundreds of women in the Services to-day who are quite prepared to come out and give domestic assistance, and who feel that they would be making


a greater contribution to the national effort at this juncture by doing so than they are making in the Services where they are now employed.
Although I know that inquiries have been made with regard to personnel in the Civil Service there is clearly evidence that, on both the men's and women's side, there is still a waste of personnel. Not long ago in my constituency a Civil Service organisation secretary stated that there was an immense waste of personnel in the Service. We know how in all these Services the thing grows like a snowball, and there does not appear to be any check. One complaint I have against the Minister of Labour, to whom I have paid tribute in this House on more than one occasion for the fine work he has done in regard to national service, is that he appointed a committee to go into the question of the use of personnel in the Services, but he has never brought evidence before this House to show that he has combed the Services, nor has he satisfied the House that there is not waste going on at the expense of civilians.
The other aspect to which I wish to call the attention of the House is the inequality as between household and household in this matter. One has only to read the daily Press. I have two or three advertisements before me taken from very reputable papers, so reputable that I am rather surprised that some of them publish these advertisements, papers like "The Times," for instance. Here is an advertisement of a week or two ago:
Parlourmaid wanted in flat, West Watford. Good wages, four in staff, comfortable post.
I think it ought to be. Here is an advertisement from a Northern paper. These people actually have the temerity to put in their own names. In this particular instance I have satisfied myself from inquiry that the case is almost worse than it appears from reading it.
A young housemaid required, 14 to 16, Three maids kept. Three in family.
That is to say, they want an extra housemaid in this family with three maids already kept at the present time. Here is an advertisement from "The Times" of Tuesday:
Single-handed cook required for Cobham, Surrey. Two adults in family. Three staff, with daily help for rough.
Here is a case of three on the staff, with

a daily help, and the people concerned are advertising for extra assistance in that household at the present time. They would not be advertising for assistance of that character unless they had some hope of getting it. Yet there are men and women working hard day by day, some of them for years, who have no domestic assistance of any kind in their houses.
I say that advertisements of this character are a challenge to the Minister of Labour and an affront to the nation at a time like this. It is an affront to the nation at a time of scarcity of labour and personnel. There is an individual in this country who holds no official position who has eight indoor servants. How does the Minister of Labour justify it? I cannot give their ages but I believe that some of them are of military age. This individual is competing for domestic service at enhanced prices. There is a ramp going on in certain categories of domestic servants, by which people can get domestic assistance in their household at prohibitive prices, making it quite impossible for a large number of deserving people to get help. This is especially so in the case of alien labour, refugees, some of whom do nor come under any category of national service registration. I want to direct the attention of my hon. Friend to it. Any individual in this country, whether he be a millionaire or anybody else, who has eight indoor servants is showing a callous disregard for the national situation which ought to be exposed. I do not think it should be allowed to go on.
My right hon. Friend has tried to meet this, I know, in more than one direction. In an answer which he gave recently in the House he said that in response to applications by deserving households some vacancies had been filled up, and that in the cases in which they had had applications there were 6,563 vacancies unfilled after application at the time he answered the Question. I think that should be multiplied by ten in respect of people who do not apply, which means that there are 60,000 at least. What should my right hon. Friend do in circumstances of this kind? He ought to inquire again into the personnel of the Services and the Civil Service. He will find there ample room for action. There are a large number of men in many corps in the Army, men getting on in years, who are in the R.A.M.C., who are ready, and should be


ready, to retire from the Army, and who could render great assistance in this field. If the right hon. Gentleman leaves it to the Services themselves there is no hope of any reduction or any redress. After all, he is responsible for personnel and labour in this country, and for the organisation of man-power. It is the duty of the Ministry of Labour to satisfy themselves that they have combed out the Services, including the Civil Service, so long as it does not affect the efficiency of those Services. The Minister ought to see that no household in this country has more than two servants. I do not care what household it is. I do not think any household has a right to have more than two servants at a time when there are thousands without any.

Wing-Commander Grant-Ferris: Private households?

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Yes, I am speaking about private households. The House will understand that I do not wish to extend my argument to boarding houses or hotels, or even houses of official people. I know there are other hon. Members who feel as strongly as I do on this question. But I do want my right hon. Friend on behalf of the Ministry of Labour to give us some assurance this time which will carry us a little further than we have been carried in the past. We are engaged in a total war. The civilians of this country run great risks; many of them have made great sacrifices. But there are junior officers in the Army today who have batmen to look after them.

Mr. Bartle Bull: This talk about batmen is so much nonsense. The only officers who have batmen are those who go into battle; and then the batman acts as the officer's runner, and does everything for him.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I am quite well acquainted with the situation in the Army; I have been in the Army myself. I say that a junior officer with the rank of captain is entitled to a batman.

Mr. Bull: No junior officer has a batman unless he goes into battle, and then the batman is his runner.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I was talking today to an officer who is a captain, and he has a batman. I do not think that any

junior officer should have one man looking after him.

Mr. Bull: They do not. If the officer is a fighting soldier he has a batman, who acts as his runner, at the man's own wish. If the man does not wish to be a batman he does not have to be one.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: My hon Friend is talking of men in the fighting line. These officers to whom I am referring are in this country, and have been here since the beginning of this war. They run no greater war risks and make no greater sacrifices than anybody else.

Mr. Edgar Granville: Some of them are in this House.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Yes. I think that there should be further inquiry into this matter. The situation in civilian life is very serious. Our people are getting tired, and this war may last a long time; it may last another year—I do not know. I think the Minister of Labour should go into this question thoroughly, to satisfy our people that every endeavour is made to see that civilian life is eased somewhat, if it can be.

Wing-Commander Grant-Ferris (St. Pancras, North): I rise to say how grateful I am to the bon. Member for raising this most important subject. I would like to say a word about one particular class of person who, I think, is served very badly indeed. That is the young wife with a young family. I have personal experience of this, not because I am concerned myself—my own family, I am glad to say, are old enough to be away at school—but many of my wife's contemporaries have young families. In one case there are three children below the age of four. This young wife finds it quite impossible to get any domestic help. She comes of a good family: she has been used to having things reasonably comfortable. She has to clean her house.

Mr. Gallacher: We all come from bad families.

Wing-Commander Grant-Ferris: The hon. Gentleman might allow me to make my point, and then he will have the opportunity to get up. When I say a good family, I do not mean what he suggests; I mean a well-brought-up family, such as he comes from himself, I am sure. This young lady has had a nervous break-


down. She has had to go away, and the children have had to be farmed out with anybody who is good enough to take them. This sort of thing should not be tolerated, and I hope that something will be done by the Minister to help these very hard and deserving cases. It is scandalous that private houses should have a number of servants to-day, when people such as those I have referred to cannot get any help at all.

Mr. Edgar Granville: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones), who, with his record in the last war, should know all about batmen, was not taken up the garden path by the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Bull) on the question of batmen. Mine saved my life in the last war—

Mr. Bull: I brought the hon. Member down the garden path. I did not take him up.

Mr. Granville: Well, whether the hon. Member took him up, or brought him down, the garden path, or whatever he was doing, the question of batmen was not the main argument of my hon. Friend. My recollection is that in the early part of this war, whether an officer was on the active list or not, he got a batman if he was a senior officer, and he got part of a batman if he was a junior officer. I should have thought it a very strong thing to say that there is no senior officer anywhere in this country not on active service who did not get a batman.

Mr. Bull: My hon. Friend spoke of officers up to the rank of captain. I do not think that a senior officer was mentioned.

Mr. Granville: Then let us deal only with junior officers up to the rank of captain. I think it would be a very strong thing for the hon. Gentleman to say that nowhere in the British Isles was there an officer—

Mr. Bull: I did not say it.

Mr. Granville: I am supporting the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh, and I say that it would be a very strong thing to say that nowhere in this country was there an officer below the rank of captain who had not a batman to himself. The House is indebted to my

hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh for introducing this subject. He raised it a long time ago, and he has been a most persistent questioner of the Minister. I hope that we are going to have a considered reply to-day from the Parliamentary Secretary. He is a mountain of Parliamentary efficiency and charm and courtesy, and I am certain that he is aware of the seriousness of this problem. I hope that he is going to give it sympathetic consideration. As my hon. Friend said, we all have evidence of the unfair working of this domestic problem. I am very sorry that the Minister of Labour did not, quite early in this war, tackle the question of avocational allocation, in its technical sense, in this manpower problem. There were bound to be these problems accumulating in a long war. As my hon. Friend suggested, the solution is some kind of voluntary or organised pooling of domestic servants. We have all had evidence from our own constituencies. We have had letters sent to us over and over again about old and infirm people, cripples and invalids, who have suffered considerably because they are unable to get any domestic help for their very simple needs.
One hon. Member in a Debate a few days ago, the hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Thomas), referred to the case of the grand-daughter of an ex-Prime Minister who was having to do her own chores because of poverty, and of course there are a large number of old people to-day who have to do their own housework simply because they cannot get domestic help of any kind although they could afford to pay for it. I know one hon. Member who sits above the Gangway, who is looked on by some people as a future Prime Minister, who makes great attacks on the Government and then has to go home and cook his own supper, and make his own bed, simply because in the district where he lives it is impossible to get domestic help.

Mr. Muff: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman the future Prime Minister is married.

Mr. Granville: He is married, but his wife lives in another part of the country in his northern constituency. Another Member of the House is looked after by a single alien servant as housekeeper. There is a millionaire with eight servants in the country and a peeress who has a large


establishment with a large number of servants, constantly making bids of higher wages to get that housekeeper away from the hon. Member. There is a considerable wage racket going on among many of these alien servants. I have heard of another case of a house in the country where a veritable band of Hungarians wait at table, and look after the domestic requirements of that particular house. Of course, there is a law of supply and demand operating here, and well-to-do people can outbid the ordinary person when trying to obtain alien servants who are not subject to the National Service Acts. I do not think we can altogether blame the aliens, who very often are good cooks and good domestic servants, for going to the wealthy people, but I think we ought to have regard to the case referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend of the young wife with family responsibilities who has not the slightest chance of getting hold of any of these people to help her. Surely, those in the position of that young wife are the people who should be able to get help.
I know a street only a few hundred yards from the House of Commons in which live an old couple, both completely infirm, almost unable to move. If it were not for the fact that their relatives make journeys to London to help them, I do not know what they would do. Yet that same street is absolutely chockablock with scores of girls in the A.T.S. in houses taken over by the War Department, who are bored and idle. It seems to me that something ought to be done by the Government in this matter, even at this stage of the war. I am afraid the Minister of Labour was inclined to take the view that he had solved most of the problems when he put everybody into uniform. In the total war we have to wage now, we must organise man-power. I believe that, in the last war, the Americans tackled the question of getting the right men into the right jobs scientifically. The Germans, the best copyists in the world, have tried to do it in this war. Our Government are content to get everybody conscripted into uniform. Consequently, there is a wastage of man-power all over the country and I believe that even now with great events pending the Government should make some attempt to organise man-power on the home front.
This so-called racket in the matter of domestic service is typical of some of the injustices that are being allowed up and down the country to-day. It is time that someone uttered a warning to the Government. Nobody from the Government tackles the home front or attempts to give inspiration to the people of the country. Somebody has said that as well as a second military front we must have a second moral front, but the Government have never done anything to give an inspired lead on vital issues. There is unenlightened self-interest amongst certain sections in the towns and cities; the Government know it and do nothing about it. They do not try to give a moral lead. Instead, they leave it to the B.B.C. with its programmes of talk and uplift. It is not good enough. I wish we had the Minister of Labour here to-day. The Minister can go to Bristol and in an amazing speech use a steamhammer to crack a peanut, and in doing so he upsets industrial morale instead of harmonising the various interests. This matter ought to be tackled and I hope that the hon. Member the Parliamentary Secretary will give an encouraging reply that he is alive to all this.

Sir R. W. Smith: I think the House is indebted to the hon. Member for raising this matter, which is of considerable interest to the country, but I do not think he should deal with it entirely on a numerical basis. There are many cases in which one domestic help is worth two or three in other cases. You might get young people going into a house with no experience. They cannot possibly be as useful as, say, a woman of 40 or 50, who has had experience in running a house and has knowledge of cooking. I would like to say that in dealing with institutions, and especially hospitals, the Government have been very remiss. This trouble about domestic help in such institutions as emergency hospitals ought never to have arisen. The Government decided that they wanted so many beds in these emergency hospitals and they must have known perfectly well that that meant that so many nurses would be required. If they knew the number of nurses that would be required to look after the patients, they ought also to have known how much domestic help would be necessary. Instead of that


women were directed into work away from their homes, when they might have remained and have done domestic work in the neighbourhood. There are many cases of old and infirm people who were looked after by a daughter who kept house. That woman has been directed into labour somewhere else. I have myself made appeals to have women in such a position brought home, but the reply has been that nothing can be done. If these women had been allowed to go to work in institutions in the neighbourhood they could have looked after the homes of their parents after finishing their work in the institution. Surely, something might be done to make use of the material we have in this country?
Reference has been made to young wives, and I would like to press that point, because I know many cases of young women with children—in one case, twins, and in another case four children—who cannot get any help at all. We talk about the health of the nation, but, if you are to have these young wives working overtime and pulling down their strength, you are not going to be able to have an A.1 nation. You are doing your very best to produce a C.3 nation. Cannot we have some of our women brought back to us from other parts of the country and set to work to help their own people at home? I believe the Minister has some sympathy, but this is a problem which should have been tackled long ago. It should be possible to do something for these young wives. It is very hard on a person who is hard-pressed when she sees members of the A.T.S. and other young women, wandering about the streets and doing, so far as she can see, absolutely nothing, and with a certain amount of time off. Could not the Minister make it possible for the daughters of old people to be able to do their work, when called up, as near their homes as possible?

Mr. Muff: I am glad the hon. Member raised this question and also that he paid his tribute to the efforts of the Ministry of Labour to endeavour to direct people to work in hospitals. To quote the hon. Member's own language, "the Ministry of Labour has not been altogether unsuccessful" in getting women to help in the highly necessary task of serving the hospitals. There are still deficiencies, but it is no good ex-

aggerating and talking about rackets as if we have not done anything in this House to encourage the Ministry of Labour. The hon. Member who raised the matter said that much has been done and that it is not altogether unsatisfactory. Then he goes off at a tangent, and pleads for the Ministry of Labour to have another comb-out in the Army, and gives us a dissertation on the iniquitous system of batmen. I thought we were talking about skirts, not trousers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Including bat-women."] I refuse, Sir, to be led up the garden, and I will keep to females and the lack of female labour, because I understand that this Debate originally had nothing at all to do with batmen and their duties. This shortage of labour is a serious thing, but the hon. Gentleman who raised it turned totalitarian in dealing with advertisements for girls of 14 to 16, and in making an appeal, which will appear in HANSARD to-morrow, to the Minister of Labour to abolish the powers of such people to put in such advertisements.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I think that, when my hon. Friend is quoting me, he might do me the justice of quoting me correctly. There are men as well as women in domestic service, but, on the other point of domestic service, the suggestion I made was that the Minister should prohibit any advertisements for homes where there were three or four in the house already.

Mr. Muff: I agree, but the point is that even the Minister does not want to take such totalitarian powers as that. The only thing we can do, and here I agree with my hon. Friend, is to suggest that such foolish advertisements, if read by many people, would certainly have a bad effect on the morale of the nation.

Mr. Granville: Does the hon. Member not know that the Ministry have already taken powers to conscript the man-power of the country?

Mr. Muff: I submit that we are not going to give powers to the Ministry of Labour, or to any other Ministry to prohibit advertisements which are within the law. That is the policy of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville), whose attacks we bear with philosophic equanimity. I am concerned with those who are aged and who lack domestic help in their own


households. I do not want to boast, but I have to make dozens of calls every week in households, where the husband is away in the Fighting Services. That is one of my jobs, and I find that the position is getting more and more serious in those households. I do not want to indulge in any class distinctions, but there are tens of thousands of housewives in this country with two, three, or four small children, who are at their wits' end in trying to conduct their households in a decent way.
I suggest that this House has encouraged the Minister to do something, and, if the Minister of Health were here, he would be able to tell what has been done in the North of England. I know very little about Wales, but I do know something about the North of England, where we are progressive and have an enlightened civic pride. If my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones), for whom I have such a great personal esteem, could visit the area North of the Trent, he would find civic authorities which had, with the accord of the Minister of Labour and through the foresight of the Ministry of Health, provided day nurseries and crôches and other forms of help to these housewives. I would prefer, however, that we should be able to give communal help by daily helpers, not only to those with money in their pockets but also to those with modest means.
To-day, we are in a total war. I agree that neither the Minister of Labour nor his Parliamentary Secretary is in need of defence from me. The Parliamentary Secretary is big enough and strong enough to stand his own corner. Neither Minister has a lean and hungry look about him. But let us be factual and realistic. We have put many women in the Services. There is a wastage, I agree; there is always wastage, where there is war. But to ask, at this juncture, for miracles to be done, like producing rabbits out of a hat, is not much good. What we can do, is to make the best use of the services we have got.

Mr. Granville: I am not attacking the Labour Party.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): The hon. Member may ask questions. He has already made one

speech and he must not endeavour to make another speech, or to answer attacks made upon him now.

Mr. Granville: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and will content myself by asking whether the hon. Member thinks it proper and fair that one household should have four or five servants, when another, with equal means, is unable to get a servant at all. As a good Socialist does the hon. Member think that that is right?

Mr. Muff: I do not like to make comparisons and I agree with the hon. Member on the principle that I would apply to universities. I do not want universities abolished just because I cannot send my children there. These matters want ventilating. It is an abuse of the power of money to be able to attract domestic servants to staff your household by paying too high wages. I am ready to go with the hon. Member to the street I mentioned at the back of Westminster immediately the House has adjourned. I will take a soap box with me, and will hold an open-air meeting with him, and try to awaken a decent sense of propriety and balance during the war. In the meantime, let us get back to life. The hon. Member for Eye exaggerated his case and he does not make it any better by talking about rackets and racketeers. This means, Can we get more mothers' helps, more creches and more day nurseries? That is the question which the Parliamentary Secretary has to answer and I hope that he will be able to give a good answer.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not want to detain the House for longer than is necessary because most of the arguments have been put several times. The House is well aware of the difficulties of this question. The hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones), who introduced it, rather spoilt his case by dealing with certain aspects of it, which, though interesting, are irrelevant. Occasionally one sees in various newspapers advertisements of the kind to which he referred, but I am inclined to think that they are very few and far between. Households with four, five or six servants are not as numerous as he would lead us to believe. The problem goes much deeper than that. It is a serious and permanent problem. We had the problem before the war. The war has made


it worse and it is likely, when the war is over, that it will not appreciably improve. The plain fact is that domestic service is not popular and that girls today prefer regular hours, like their evenings off and to know where they are from day to day. If a girl happens to be the only maid in the house, she is frequently unable to know just where she is and to make arrangements as one can when one's hours are definitely laid down.
Although that problem has to be faced—and it would be a good thing if the Ministry of Labour faced it soon—if we are to encourage people to have larger families, some provision will have to be made nationally for seeing that the woman in the home, whatever her financial situation, gets domestic help, or help with her children if she herself looks after her own house. But even during the war the Ministry of Labour could do something. It could instruct its local hardship committees to be a little more lenient when a girl comes before them and can show definitely that she lives with aged parents, or is helping a sister or her mother with younger children in the home. I have had a number of these instances from my own division and time and time again, in my view, an excellent case has been put up, but the local hardship committee have directed the girl to go into other employment. It is clear to me—and I should like to feel that it is clear to the Ministry—that, if a girl is helping in the home, or helping aged parents, she is doing work of national service, and is just as much use to the community at this particular juncture in its history as she would be if sent into the Services or even to work elsewhere.
Another direction in which the Ministry could help would be to help raise the status of those who go out to give help to others. Here, again, I have had instances in my Division where the Ministry has shown itself somewhat short-sighted. Women have been willing to assist in other households, but having a certain sense of dignity and pride, they have wanted to go well dressed. In her own home, a woman can do the housework in her old clothes, but if she is going out to help someone else, she likes to dress a little better than if she were staying in her own house. She also likes to have an

overall for the work she is going to do. It would help considerably if the Ministry of Labour would help women in that position, either to get their overalls free, or to be able to get them with a reduced number of coupons. I put the idea to the President of the Board of Trade some time ago and he could not see his way to acquiesce in the suggestion. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to the Debate that his Ministry should ask the President of the Board of Trade to see that, either overalls are provided free for those who go out to give domestic help, or for a limited number of coupons. I do not know what else at the present time the Ministry can do. I realise the difficulty of directing women into work of this kind but much could be done to bring hardship committees to a different frame of mind, so that when a good case is made out, a woman shall not be directed away from domestic work.

Mr. Bartle Bull: I intervene only for a moment or two and I will endeavour not to be provocative. I want to say a word or two in view of the fact that I asked a question of the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones). Obviously there is no compulsion. As every hon. Member knows, nobody need be a batman to any officer, and a batman very often has to perform his ordinary duties as well. Very often now in the case of service battalions you will find one batman helping two, three or four officers, second lieutenants, first lieutenants or captains, according to the number of people available to do that particular job. You will of ten find that the batman is much older than the other soldiers, and is very often also a category man. What is an officer's duty? Is it to look after his men and to think a little—if he is capable of doing so; if not the batman should be the officer and the officer should be reduced to batman—or to shine his boots and polish his buttons? That is the question we must consider. There is, as everyone knows, very little, if any, polishing of buttons or belts or shoes in the field, but in an active service battalion I am quite satisfied that it is extremely important for an officer of any rank to have a batman because, as my hon. Friend knows very well, the batman is then in the position of runner to the junior officer. It is the usual custom for the officer in the British Army to go


first, and his batman, as runner, comes immediately after. It is a most unenviable job to be a runner in the field. That is all I have to say, and I hope I have not been provocative in the remarks which I have only made because of what was said by the hon. Member.

Miss Ward: I think the provision of domestic service is one of the most difficult problems which the Ministry of Labour has to face. I would like to emphasise two aspects of it. First, I do not think anyone would feel it would have been right for the Minister to direct girls into private domestic service. I think that would have raised a quite impossible situation in the country. Ever since the inception of the Minister of Labour's consultative committee, I have had the privilege of sitting on it, and I very much welcomed the opportunity of being associated with my right hon. Friend. I am quite certain, however, that I should not have felt able to accept the point of view that one should direct girls into private homes in a domestic capacity. At the same time, I would like to pay a tribute to the housewives and the mothers of the country for the way they have carried on, sometimes doing very much harder jobs, involving very much longer hours, than women who have been called up to serve in other forms of national life.
I must apologise for not having been here when my hon. Friend raised the question. I understand that the discussion has roamed over houses where there is more than one domestic servant, and that those have been compared with the houses of people who have been unable to obtain any domestic help of any kind. If one looked into the position of the fortunate people who still retain a domestic staff, I think you would find, for the most part, that those domestic servants are of an age unaffected by the Ministry of Labour call-up. Therefore, if you tried to level up the position by withdrawing the women from those houses, you would in fact be seeking to direct women who are over calling-up age, or under calling-up age, and it would raise a quite impossible position to try to enforce direction on people who fall without the age categories subject to direction by the Minister. I think, also,

that it would be very difficult even to try to direct women over the age of 50, who have been associated with perhaps one family ever since they were 18, 19 or 20 years of age, and suggest that they should work in some other household. As I am sure my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary would agree, women can be extremely obstinate when they want to be, and I do not think I would like to undertake the responsibility of trying to direct women over the age of 50 from one kind of domestic post into another.
I would just say, because I know that it has given great cause for anxiety to my hon. Friend, and, indeed, to many of us who have had associations and contacts with families all over the country, that women who have very young children, or women who are going to have children, are placed in an impossible position when they cannot obtain domestic help for a period of a few months. I do not think there is an answer, but what has caused criticism is that there has been a variation in the approach of the local hardship committees when domestic servants have come up before them, either on their own account or with the co-operation of their employers, and deferment has been asked for on the ground that the mistress of the house is going to have a child in the near future. Now some local hardship committees have been extremely wise, helpful and knowledgeable, but some have, in my opinion, taken an entirely wrong line. If any criticism can be levelled at the Ministry of Labour, I think it is that, somehow or other—I am associating myself with what has been done—we have found it impossible to get sufficient uniformity of decision from the local hardship committees to give the feeling that justice is spread equally right over the country.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary could look into that particular aspect. As we all know, we are on the eve of very grave events, and I feel extremely sorry for officers and other ranks who have to go abroad, leaving their wives struggling and not knowing what is going to happen to them. As I say, I think the problem is almost insoluble but perhaps we could see that there is greater uniformity of decision by local hardship committees, and in areas where, in the technical sense,


there is not so much war work for women—and one cannot direct the wives of serving men away from their homes—I thing local committees could be more on coming in organising their household labour. I do not know whether we have been active enough in stimulating the local authorities to local schemes, but I do think that in areas where there is not much women's war work—take my own North East coast compared with Birmingham and Coventry—there is perhaps a surplus of women. If they had really had the case put to them, I believe they might have gone in and helped women in very difficult domestic circumstances over their major period of difficulty.
However, on the general issue of directing women into domestic service, I cannot think of anything more unpopular that the House of Commons could do than press the Minister on that line. Let us face the fact that domestic service is not popular. Frankly, I would myself do any one of the jobs open to women to-day, much more readily and with greater alacrity, than I would undertake a domestic service job. It is one of the phases of life, and there are so many phases to be dealt with that the Minister will have a difficult job to popularise domestic service. But we can all give our minds to this problem, and I hope that in future we may be able to increase the status of domestic service so that people will want to go into it and realise that by doing so they are making a contribution to the national effort.

Mr. Martin: I would like to deal with a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) with regard to appeals of daughters at home who have sick or aged parents and who are directed into work by the local National Service Officer or the local committee. I have always understood that the Minister would give consideration to such young women and that, except in cases where it was quite clear there was no justification for the request, they should get exemption when sick parents depended upon them. Now I find, in case after case, that the daughters of old and sick people are frequently directed into work away from their neighbourhood, although they have asked if they could do work near home so they could help with house-

work at night and look after their parents. These appeals have been completely ignored. To-day, I sent to the Department a case of an old man suffering from a heart complaint and chronic bronchitis, whose only daughter has been sent from London to Birmingham, leaving him entirely dependent upon neighbours. This man was so ill when I saw him that he could not answer the door, yet the local officer said that there was no need for his daughter to live at home or to stay in London. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame."] That sort of case frequently happens, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to pay attention to this matter and see that his local officers and committees adopt a uniform method of dealing with these cases, because there is great disparity in various parts of the country.

Mr. R. Morgan: I want to make a friendly intervention in the Debate. There is a special difficulty with regard to the paucity of domestic servants. In my own county there have been domestic servants who have been happy in their work, and who have been directed by the Department to factories, where there was no need for them—at least, that is what I have been told. I cannot say how true it is, but I can say that the head man of a factory near my division said to me the other day, "I could do with 500 fewer young women to-morrow." Whether that is so I do not know, but if it was so the Ministry could alleviate the burden of finding domestic help. I do not believe that all young people want to leave their jobs in domestic service; many are well remunerated and are happy. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary could disillusion the people who talk like that by telling them that we have not reached the peak in industry yet, or the point at which we can release large numbers of young people? If so, it would give great satisfaction, because if it was thought that hundreds of people were wasting their time in our factories it would be a serious matter. I do not believe it is true, but it is being repeatedly said. I have had letters from people who have said that factory workers are wasting their time. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to give an assurance that all this young labour, especially women labour, in our factories is being satisfactorily used.

Mr. Murray: I want to deal with a matter concerning my own Division, namely, that of miners who have no wives and who have had their daughters taken away from them and sent to other work. This is a good deal worse than anything which has been mentioned to-day. It is wrong that men should have to come from the mines and cook their own food because their daughters have been directed to other work. I know that the Ministry have tried to put these women as near home as possible, but if I had to choose between a woman staying at home to look after her father coming from the mine and going away to look after two or three children I would choose, every time, that the woman should stay at home. Some of us have been brought up in homes where there have been more than two or three children and where it was the usual practice for someone to help in the home for a fortnight after our mother's confinement, after which we were left to our own devices. I would remind hon. Members who have spoken that there is a war on and that I am talking about difficulties which existed in our homes before the war started, when there was an economic war. I have not been able to understand why there are so many girls in the Services. I have wondered whether there were permanent jobs for them to do. I felt that many of them could be doing more useful work, and that they were perhaps only where they were because others held good jobs as their supervisors. That is my individual opinion about the Services. I have felt that many of the girls there could be doing more useful work than they have been called to.
I wish the Parliamentary Secretary would look at the question of calling young women from the homes of miners and sending them to work for long hours in the factories. If a girl is sent to a factory in my Division it means that she is away from the home for 12 or 13 hours. I ask the House to realise the difficulties of a man working seven or eight hours in the pit and then corning home to a girl who has been working for 12 or 13 hours. What chance has she to do domestic work and to give food to a man who has been working hard, and in some of the mines in Durham, working wet? There is no place he can go to to dry his clothes Some of the collieries are small; their life

may not be long and it does not pay to instal baths. In the old-fashioned miner's house there is no bathroom and he has to bath in the kitchen. If the girl is taken away where there is no mother in the home, you create 100 per cent. worse hardship than in the cases that have been mentioned. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will help us in this direction.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): I make no complaint whatever about the raising of this subject, which affects every one of us, on a day on which we can have a certain amount of time to discuss it fully. I think we may be well content both with the attendance and with the number and quality of the speeches that have been made. The underlying condition in all these problems which affect the Ministry of Labour, and affects us all, is that there is no chance at the moment of easing up in our labour position. The demands on our people at the moment are as heavy, or heavier than they have ever been, and there is no chance, therefore, of the rigour of our call-up or of our demands on the population being lessened at this moment. The House will not wish me to labour the point. They all know the reason. That is why I was rather sorry to hear the attack made upon the Forces by the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones), which was taken up by some other speakers. He talked of gross waste of personnel in the Services and asked if this call-up was necessary, and if some of the R.A.M.C. could be weeded out.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I said that there were elderly men in the R.A.M.C. on the point of demobilisation, many of whom could be released.

Mr. McCorquodale: That is what I said; the hon. Member said that some of the R.A.M.C. could be weeded out. I ask the House to consider whether, on the eve of the operations of which we all know, it is practical to ask the Services, especially the medical services, which are going to attend to casualties, to curtail their numbers. If all, the women's Services are not fully employed to-day—and those best able to judge tell me that by and large they are very fully employed—they will all very soon be fully employed and over-employed and I cannot recommend to the House that we should at this


time turn, for an easement of our domestic difficulties, to a comb-out of the Services. The question has been raised of women being withdrawn from their homes, causing hardship to their parents. Our present procedure is that cases of women being withdrawn, daughters or domestics, are now dealt with by women's panels in the first instance if there is any doubt or difficulty or if the women wish that to be clone. It is only where there is an appeal against direction that the local appeal board comes in, and these girls do not go to the statutory hardship committees. The women's panels are specially instructed to pay due regard to the conditions in the households from which it is proposed to withdraw the women. If, therefore, there are cases where hon. Members think that at the moment hardship is being caused unnecessarily, I wish they would write to me and I will look into them.

Major Lloyd: Are there these women's panels in every part of the country?

Mr. McCorquodale: Very much so, and they are doing very good work. I am glad to pay tribute to these panels. It is unpleasant and difficult work and by and large they have done awfully well and we have very few complaints.
One of the interesting things about the Debate is that it is on a subject which our wives probably know much more about than we do, yet with the single exception of the hon. Member for Walls-end (Miss Ward) all the lady Members have chosen to absent themselves. I thought we should get a broadside from all of them. Instead we had a speech from a lady Member who pointed out certain difficulties in the proposals that the hon. Member for Denbigh made. I would ask him, before he suggests that we at the Ministry should begin directing and calling up and changing the position of women over 50 and under 18, to recall the Debate we had some little time ago when we asked permission of the House to call up women of 45 to 50 and were subjected to a storm of criticism, in which I believe he himself indulged, saying that this was iniquitous. If that is the case, it would not be a practicable step for us to consider rationing domestic help where it concerns women over the age of the call-up. I am glad the hon. Lady raised that point and put it so clearly, because it

is fundamental in all suggestions about rationing the supply of domestic servants. All we can do is to take the women in the call-up ages of 18 to 50 and see that they at least are properly employed. The hon. Member said he did not feel that the Ministry of Labour quite appreciated the position. On the contrary, we cannot help appreciating the position, in view of our postbags and representations made by Members and by our own officials all over the country. It has given my right hon. Friend and myself a very great deal of concern. We know that there are hard cases and difficulties.
May I run over what we are doing at the moment to supply domestic workers to hospitals and other institutions of that type, and also what we are doing about private homes? With regard to hospitals and similar establishments, we do not withdraw any labour. Nevertheless, because labour drifted away and there was wastage, the supply position became acute and the hospitals were not able to keep on recruiting sufficiently to make up this wastage. The Ministry of Labour a year and a half ago was entrusted with the recruitment and distribution of nurses and midwives and we set up an Advisory Council, over which I presided. It was no use recruiting a great number more nurses if we did not have a complementary number of domestic workers in the hospital to make the thing balance.
Therefore, we considered the domestic problem, as it concerned hospitals. The first thing we did was to ask a committee, presided over by Sir Hector Hetherington, to make recommendations as to minimum rates of wages and conditions in hospitals and institutions, so that, if necessary, we could direct women to those hospitals, knowing that they would get the proper rates of wages and conditions. He reported in November, 1943. My Minister immediately set up a committee on institutional *domestic employment over which I also preside. The Committee made certain suggestions towards the end of the year, and asked that the highest priority should be given to this domestic work. We agreed to do so.
Now, the priority of domestic employment in hospitals and similar institutions is placed on the highest level and it is regarded by the Ministry of Labour as


equal in importance to aircraft work. The Committee asked that directions should be issued, if necessary, where the Hetherington scales were in operation, and we are doing that. They also suggested that we should go in for a publicity campaign to try to improve the status of domestic work in the eyes of the general public and to make it easier to ask girls to go in for it. This we are doing now. The Treasury were good enough to let us have a considerable amount of money for this publicity campaign which has been in full swing for some time and which, I am glad to say, is having an effect. Finally, the Committee made certain valuable recommendations as to the training of domestic workers which we are following up.
All those steps have been taken. As a result, I am glad to be able to tell the House that, in February, we placed no less than 4,000 domestic workers in hospitals and in institutions, another 500 in children's homes and the like, and another 460 in the school meals service. In March, it is interesting to note, we placed very nearly another 4,000 in hospitals. In the first two months of this campaign its results were felt, and I am glad to say that the position is easier in those hospitals and institutions, and that shortly it will be much easier. I am afraid I have not got the April figures yet.
Last night I was tackled about the call-up of the 1923 age group to be sent into a vital industry, and about the Cabinet decision that only very exceptional sections of the community should be exempted from this arbitrary call-up. I am glad to be able to say that this field of domestic service is one of those to which the 1923 age group call-up does not apply. It is rather early yet to judge the results of the publicity campaign but we have run it on the same lines as the one in which we appealed last summer for nurses. That campaign was most successful. If the House would be interested for a moment I would like to tell hon. Members—because these are fairly new figures—that in the field of nursing, following the campaign for more nurses to come forward, the Ministry of Health figures for hospitals

and institutions—not including mental nursing, district nursing, midwives and the like—show that there was a net increase of 4,000 nurses, after wastage, in the country, between May last year and February of this year. Of those 4,000, no fewer than 2,500 are increased numbers of student nurses who will be of permanent addition to the profession. If that was so following our publicity campaign for nurses, and if we can get anything like the same success regarding domestic workers, I think our problems will be much relieved.
Now I come for a moment or two to the problem of domestic staffs in private houses. This, as the hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) says, is even more difficult because we cannot really issue directions, backed by prosecution and possible imprisonment for disobedience, for girls to go into private houses for domestic work. We do not make withdrawals, even in the age groups where the call-up operates, from houses where there is only one domestic and where there is exceptional hardship. We have recently taken steps to supply help in all possible cases where these household hardships occur. We have especially turned our attention to houses in which there are expectant mothers with children, several young children, or households with a number of war workers in them or lodgers doing war work, doctors' households, farmers' households and widowers' households—and that meets the case of the hon. Member who spoke from a Durham constituency—and where there are aged people. In these cases we will do our best to supply help. We give these jobs high priority, and if necessary, if there are no immobile older people available, we will allow young mobile people of ages at which they would normally be sent to the factories, to go to those houses; and, in cases where there is doubt whether hardship exists and whether a young person who would otherwise be employed in the highest military production should be allowed to go to the household, we ask our women's panels to advise us.
This step we have again only recently started, as a result of the advice of our committee, and I am glad to be able to tell the House that, both in February and in March, between 1,400 and 1,500 were placed during the month in these difficult households. I know that has not com-


pleted the number of hardship households in the country but it is a start—nearly 3,000 domestic workers, one for each of these households. Where they have been submitted I know they have been very readily accepted. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Wing-Commander Grant-Ferris) raised the question of a household which he knew about which exactly fitted this description of undue hardship, if what I heard is correct. I wonder whether the lady in question had applied to the Minister of Labour for help. If not, I hope she will do so, and we will do our very best to help her without limit, except that we cannot issue a direction.
The point has been raised, and I am glad of it, about those most unfortunate advertisements—and I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh—that one sometimes reads in the paper, such as "two in family, four maids kept." It is an affront to the nation when such words are read. From such inquiries as I have been able to make, it appears that a great number of these advertisements are not correct. At least, one into which I inquired myself brought the reply, when application was made: "Oh, yes, four maids kept? Of course we have not got four maids now. That was before the war." It is a lure to try to get hold of someone. Sometimes they are advertisements thrown out in the hope of catching a fish. I suggest to people who are inclined to put such advertisements into the paper that they are not patriotic because they cause a great deal of mental distress. The war effort would be helped if they refrained from putting in advertisements of that kind. We cannot stop them. They are not illegal, but they are most unfortunate, and I hope that the comments made about them in all parts of the House will be borne in mind.

Sir R. W. Smith: Are not these advertisements very often put in by registries, and not by individuals?

Mr. McCorquodale: I believe that is the case in a great number of cases, especially where there is a box number. I would like to look into the case of the household mentioned by the hon. Member for Denbigh in which there were eight domestic servants, and see

whether any of them come within our scope, so that we could withdraw them. I would also like to look into the case in which there was a "swarm of Hungarians" mentioned by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville). I would like to thank him for the very kind remarks he made about myself. These Hungarians should, of course, come under our rules if they are of the proper age, and we would direct them to more important war work. If he will give me the particulars I shall be happy to look into the case.
Home helps have been mentioned. They are very important. It is very necessary in cases of illness, childbirth and short periods of emergency of that sort, that some special steps should be taken. We are in active discussion with the Ministry of Health and local authorities to see if we cannot get on with some good scheme before next winter comes round.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Could anything be done to provide overalls for these home helps? I have had several cases of this kind. They like to feel that they are respectably dressed.

Mr. McCorquodale: As my hon. Friend knows, that is primarily a matter for the Board of Trade, but I will certainly look into it and see if something can be done.
I would just like to make one remark about a matter that is concerning us at the Ministry of Labour very much, that is, the future of domestic work of all kinds in this country after the war. It is certain that we shall look to this field for the employment of very large numbers of women. I am sure that the lessons of this war have led all of us to the conclusion that the easing of the household duties on the harrassed housewife by means of domestic help should not be the sole prerogative of the rich, but if possible should be spread over all sections of the community. Also I am sure that if we are to attract girls to this valuable and necessary profession after the war, there should be some more definite standards laid down as to the rates of wages, conditions of employment, and the like At the Ministry of Labour we have set up a special Department recently to consider this problem as a whole. This Department has got outside help of the highest qualifications, and at this


moment is collecting and sifting all the suggestions which have been sent to us from all quarters. I hope something will come out of the inquiry. It is too early yet to say. I am merely making these remarks because my right hon. Friend and myself are most keen that the end of the war should not find us without some future plans for domestic work in this country, and domestic work which will help as many families as can possibly be assisted.

Mr. Muff: Would the hon. Gentleman consider having training schools for mistresses so that they shall know how to treat their servants?

Mr. McCorquodale: I only want in my last words to echo what the hon. Member for Wallsend said. There is no doubt whatever that the domestic work that has been done in this country, both in hospitals and institutions and in private households, has been beyond praise, and the work which housewives have done and the way they have carried on in the difficult situation of the war has rendered service to this country in the hour of her direst need no whit less valuable than that of any other section of the community.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred pursuant to the Order of the House of 27th April, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, namely:

Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY ENDOWMENTS (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved:
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday next."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[5TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1944

MINISTRY OF WAR TRANSPORT

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding L5o, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with the Ministry of War Transport, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945. namely:

Class X, Vote 15, Ministry of War Transport
£10


Class VI, Vote 10, Miscellaneous Transport Services
£10


Class VI, Vote 9, Roads, &amp;c
£10


Class VI, Vote 2, Mercantile Marine Services
£10


Class VIII, Vote 1, Merchant Seamen's War Pensions
£10



£50.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): The Estimates which I have to present to the Committee to-day are of two kinds. There are certain Estimates about which we can give details of the expenditure proposed. There is, for example, an Estimate for the Mercantile Marine Services which appears in Class VI as Vote 2. Those Services were transferred to my Ministry from the Board of Trade and include expenditure on our Mercantile Marine offices in the ports, on the coastguards services, on the General Register and the Record Office of Shipping and Seamen. They include expenditure on the relief and repatriation of British seamen left abroad, and I am quite sure that no one will grudge the additional '150,000 for which we have to ask under this heading. In Class VI, Vote 9, there is our Estimate for Roads. That includes our grant-in-aid to the Road

Fund, from which are made grants to the local highway authorities for the maintenance and improvement of classified roads, and expenditure on trunk roads for which my noble Friend is himself responsible. It includes, also, the cost of collecting motor licence duties, the issue of driving licences and of the registration of motor vehicles, and so on.
No provision is made in this Estimate for abnormal road work due directly to the war. But, in fact, we are doing such work of two different kinds—the widening of highways for military traffic which, in general,. is done for us by the local highway authorities on repayment terms; and the laying of runways at airfields and other road works at Service establishments, which, as a rule, are done by direct labour under the direction and supervision of our own Departmental engineers. No provision is made for this expenditure in this Estimate. It is chargeable to the Vote of Credit. In Class VI, Vote 10 there is provision for miscellaneous transport services of various kinds. The sums involved are very small. In Class VIII, Vote r provision is made for allowances to disabled officers and men of the Merchant Navy, and for allowances and pensions to the dependants of officers and seamen of the Merchant Navy who have lost their lives in the service of the nation, but these obligations arise, under Acts of 1914 and 1915, from the last world war. The other Estimate which I must present to the Committee is for a net token sum of£100. It is shown in Class X, Vote 17, where also appear sub-heads, lettered from A to Z, under which the expenditure will be accounted for. For reasons of security we cannot publish details of the sums we estimate we need. They are required for our wartime services, which constitute the vast majority of all our work, and it is to them, therefore, rather than the detailed Estimates which appear in Classes VI and VIII, that I will devote the rest of what I have to say.
I am painfully conscious of the magnitude and the difficulty of my task. For one thing the Estimates of my Ministry, in its present form, have never before been debated by this Committee of the House. The Estimates of its predecessor, the Ministry of Transport, have not been debated since 1939. Since then the Ministry of Transport has been amalgamated with the war-time Ministry of


Shipping, and, also, since that time, these two Ministries, or their present successor, have taken over control of the seven major industries by which the transport of the country is carried on. The form of control varies from case to case. Oceangoing shipping is controlled by requisitioning on a time charter basis; coast vessels by the issue of licences or permits for every journey which they make; docks, not only in the nine chief ports, but in many other places, by. special statutory powers; railway companies by the Railway Agreement; inland waterways and canals by the directorate set up in 1942; road passenger transport, without formal agreement with the public authorities or companies concerned, by the statutory powers and influence of the Regional Transport Commissioners and by our power to control the fuel issues which the undertakings all receive; road haulage, for short-distance work, by fuel rationing and for long-distance work by the organisation which my noble Friend has set up and by Regulation 73B, to which the House agreed the other day.
As I say, the form of control varies. But its purpose, and the effective power which it confers upon my noble Friend, is, in every case, the same. In every case he can decide what services there shall be, what changes or restrictions must be imposed; he must decide, in consultation with his colleagues, what priorities must be given to certain categories of passengers or goods, what traffic is nonessential and must, therefore, be discouraged or altogether cut out. These powers are very wide. They affect every passenger by ship, road or rail. They touch the interests of every manufacturer and trader. They intimately concern 1,500,000 transport workers. They are vital to the conduct of the war. The Committee will understand, therefore, that the responsibilities which my noble Friend carries are very heavy and that his daily tasks are varied and complex in the extreme and they understand, I hope, that my task to-day is by no means easy. So, I hope that Members will grant me their indulgence, if it seems to some of them that I have failed to mention many subjects which they think, rightly, are of great importance.
There are three main reasons why my noble Friend and his predecessors were

driven to take control of the whole transport system of the country. The first is that adequate transport is the very foundation of successful war. That has been a military platitude since the Romans conquered Gaul and Britain because they knew how to make roads. To-day, more than ever, transport by land and sea has become a fighting arm. But transport remains the very blood-stream of civilian production and of the nation's social life. There is a common pool of transport material and skilled transport personnel from which all requirements must be met; a common pool of locomotives, rolling stock and lorries; a common pool of passenger ships and tramps, of merchant officers and seamen, of engineers, of drivers and mechanics; a common pool on which both the Armed Forces and the civil authorities must draw. The imperious necessities of the Forces must be met, but they must be met with due regard to the fact that the work of the whole nation must go on. The whole of transport, therefore, must be planned together, and it cannot be planned without control.
The second reason is that every individual movement of men or material must be planned right through, from the point of departure to destination, in whatever country or continent the destination may chance to be. To obtain the best from our transport system we must cut out every possible delay. We must know, therefore, in advance the cargo of every ship that comes to port; we must know how that cargo has been loaded so that we can make the right arrangements for its unloading and for the clearance to the proper places of the goods it brings. When we load a vessel here, we must do it with a knowledge of the capacity or the limitations of the ports or transports systems at the other end, the availability of wagons, the strength of bridges and all the rest. For example, if we are sending goods to Russia by way of Persia, we must so pack them that they can get through the tunnels on the Persian railways. In every movement, the use of road, rail, docks and ships must be planned as a single, integrated whole.
The third reason for control is the tremendous pressure on every part of the whole transport system caused by war conditions. That pressure has been due, in part, to our general strategical position.


In many ways, Hitler's greatest single advantage against us has been in transport. He has been working on interior lines. These lines, until the fairly recent past, were relatively safe. The supplies of materials that he could receive were all in Europe, near at hand. He had an immense pool of European transport material on which to draw. We were working on external lines—14,000 miles round the Cape to Egypt, and sending arms for the Russian front, by the Arctic Seas to Archangel, or through the Persian Gulf. Our lines were subject to the most dangerous attacks by surface craft, by U-boats, by Focke-Wulfs. Even here in Britain our railways were liable, for many months, to interruption by bombing from the air. Many of our import cargoes had to be diverted from their normal ports on the South and East coasts to ports on the North and West.
Owing to the fact that transport material and labour formed a common pool for military and civil work, we could not get the flow of new ships, lorries and locomotives that were required. Shipyards had to give the highest priority to escort vessels, and other naval craft. Boiler-makers were taken from railway workshops to other work even more vital than their own. Motor manufacturers were given orders for tanks, armoured cars, tanks and aircraft carriers, and a score of other types of vehicles for the Armed Forces. The flow of new omnibuses and haulage lorries became a trickle, and until the Government took it vigorously in hand, even the supply of spare parts of civil vehicles was uncertain and precariously small. Normal maintenance. and repairs were impeded by the great shortage of skilled personnel, and nowhere more seriously than on the inland waterways and canals.
While this was happening, the volume of the traffic grew and grew. The capacity of the ships was much reduced by the fact that they had to go in convoy. Convoy means an immense reduction of effective sailing time. To outwit the U-boats they had to follow circuitous and lengthy routes. Their actual deliveries were reduced by the serious losses they sustained. Yet every month they had to carry an immense and increasing burden. More and more troops and equipment were sent to distant fronts. To

Egypt was added Eastern India and then the South Pacific. When great armies had been built up, they had to be supplied. An immense American Army for invasion and an immense American Air Force had to be 'brought across the Atlantic. Increasing quantities of raw material for war production had to be supplied. I cannot, for obvious reasons, give detailed figures. We must remember the splendid part which the new American Merchant Navy have played in sharing the burden. But with the Allied merchant navies, Norwegians, Greeks, Dutch, French, Belgians, and others, to whom we owe so much, we carried a colossal total in 1943. The Prime Minister said, 14 months ago, that up to then, we had transported 3,000,000 troops overseas. Last year we made a formidable addition to the total, and, with the troops, went a vast quantity of tanks, aircraft and other equipment very difficult to load and handle. In spite of our losses, particularly in the earlier months of the year, and the fact that our import programme was, of course, heavily reduced, all ordinary requirements for industry and for the nation were not only brought to these shores last year, but we reached our target with a margin to spare.
The pressure on the railways, and indeed on other forms of inland transport, has been no less. There have been more passengers on the railways—not only troops for overseas but troops on leave. On journeys over 200 miles troops and their dependants constituted 8o per cent. of the passengers who travelled. There have been more workers travelling regularly in two directions every day. There have been workers travelling, transferred to places other than their homes, with privilege concession travel at stated intervals. There have been evacuated persons, schools and institutions which have been displaced, and many more. Taking 1943 as a whole, the number of passenger journeys, excluding season tickets, was up by 20 per cent. as compared with the period before the war. The average distance of every journey had increased by more than one half, so that the total passenger miles were up by 60 per cent. and the pressure has gone on steadily increasing. Passengers in 1943 were more by the stupendous figure of 106,000,000 than they had been the year before. Freight traffic increased by even more. Light merchandise, which needs most handling and takes


most space in the wagons, has increased by 86 per cent. as compared with 1938. Heavy merchandise and minerals have increased by 68 per cent. Even coal traffic has increased by 13 per cent., compared with the figures before the war. Not only so, but the average haul was longer. By the end of 1943 the railways were carrying 1,000,000 ton-miles more freight traffic every hour of every day than they had been before the war. Nor is that the end of the story. There are 7,000 extra trains for workers every week—1,000 a day—and, in addition, in a single recent week, there were 2,400 other special trains for passengers and freight carried on Government account. Anyone who knows the difficulties of arranging a special train and making a path available and all the other detailed complications, will realise the burden that these special trains impose.
The increased burden is no less on the omnibuses. In Derby, in vehicles which, on the average, are more than 12 years old, the corporation transport undertaking is carrying close on 50 per cent. more passengers than before the war. That figure is quite common. Sometimes it is 60, 70 and 80 per cent. more, indeed, in some places two persons are travelling by bus where only one travelled before the war. Even on the canals and inland water-ways, where, before the war, the traffic was dwindling for many years, there are now more cargoes than can be moved. Many boats and barges are laid up because we cannot repair them. Many of the skilled crews drifted in the early stages of the war into the Forces and other trades. We have not had the labour to do all the dredging or the other maintenance that we wanted to do. In recent months there has been a very serious water shortage. I am told that a difference of one inch in the level of the water, means a difference of a ton in the load that you can put on it. In spite of all those difficulties, the inland water-ways are carrying almost as big a tonnage as before the war—that is, about 1,000,000 a month—and if the statistics enabled us to calculate it in ton-miles, the fact of longer cargo journeys would show that the real work has had a big increase.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: Does that figure include the Manchester Ship Canal?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No. This is what we call inland water-ways and canals—river navigations and artificial canals. This extra burden must be carried, in some cases, as on the canals, with less transport material, and nearly always with less renewals of material and with less reserves; I have mentioned the restriction of the flow of new vehicles to the roads. It must be carried either with a smaller labour force, as on the roads and canals, or, in other cases, with labour forces whose trained skill has been diluted in a high degree. The railways have not only sent locomotives overseas, but 110,000 men into the Armed Forces. These have been replaced by women, who have done magnificently well. I cannot pay too high a tribute to the spirit, adaptability and endurance that they have shown. Even with dilution, my Ministry has found like other Departments of State, at almost every point and in almost every section of our work, that labour shortage has been a very serious factor in impeding what we want to do. This extra burden must be carried in spite of the difficulties which war conditions inevitably create.
Hon. Members have often read how hard it is to sail a ship in convoy, without lights, through a North Atlantic storm. Perhaps they have not thought what work is like in a railway marshalling yard, in the black-out, on a stormy winter night. Perhaps they do not realise what it means regularly, week after week, to drive a bus or lorry, with dimmed headlights, through the darkness for many hours a day. It is not only the extra strain which war conditions cast on the personnel; it is the reduced capacity which inevitably results. In the blackout, buses must run to a slower schedule. The average rate of freight trains is only 7¼ miles an hour, as compared with the magnificent speed of 9 before the war.
That is a rough outline of the problem with which my Noble Friend is faced—the increased traffic that must be moved, the lessened means with which to move it and the special war time difficulties which must be overcome. It is surely plain that he could not have faced it without control of the whole transport system. It is plain that he must have power to discourage non-essential traffic, or to eliminate it altogether, if that is desirable and possible. It is plain that he must have the power to decide priorities, to see that his


decisions are effective, and that urgent traffic really does get through. He must have the power to plan from first to last, and make certain that his plan is carried out, and that the transport system is linked together and is really co-ordinated in that special sense. He must have the power to ensure that the rates and charges, the cost of transport, shall not divert the traffic from that means of transport which in the public interest it is best to use; that the transport system shall be considered as a whole, that it shall be co-ordinated in that sense and that traffic shall be allocated to that means of transport which, for the service of the nation, can move it best. In the operation of that control, my noble Friend is bound to interfere with the normal traffic and even to cause hardship or inconvenience to importers and exporters, to traders and manufacturers and to the travelling public as a whole. He cannot help it. He is responsible to the Government and to Parliament for the proper use of transport, and it is for Parliament to ensure that the restrictions he imposes are justified by the result which he obtains.
It is plain that his first purpose, with an increased burden and restricted means, must be to cut out unnecessary movement, whether of passengers or goods. Everybody knows the drastic restrictions on ocean travel and nobody doubts that they are required. Nobody has yet suggested how we can ration passenger traffic by train or bus. But we have discouraged non-essential traffic in many ways. In spite of great increases in the traffic, we have cut passenger train mileage by 30 per cent. That means that train loadings are up by 120 per cent. since before the war, with the discomfort and the discouragement to needless travel which that entails. We have abolished cheap fares, and other special concessions, which were intended to induce people to travel who could really have stayed at home. We have had propaganda and advertisement campaigns, in which the companies greatly helped, to try to make the public understand the basic transport facts. We have cut road passenger services just as much as rail and, with the extra spur of the fuel and rubber shortages, we have not only reduced the normal services but we have cut out half the bus stops, all the long-distance coaches, and such shorter services as the Green Line coaches in the London area. We have made the

buses park in the centre of the city at "off-peak" times. We have stopped late evening services and services on Sunday mornings. We have withdrawn unlimited travel tickets on the buses and some specially attractive fares. All in all, we have cut road vehicle mileage to something like two-thirds of what it was before the war. We have been encouraged to take these measures because we found that they have not only given real savings in fuel and rubber, but they have definitely stopped a lot of non-essential travel. A special inquiry was made into the elimination of the Green Line coaches. We not only saved 11,500,000 vehicle miles a year, but we found that half the passengers who used to use those services. have given up altogether making the journeys they used to make.
With goods traffic we could take bolder measures. We could not only request, we could instruct and we could compel. In co-operation with the Ministry of Food and the Board of Trade, for whose generous help we are extremely grateful, we have had many schemes to cut out long hauls of goods, to prevent cross-hauls of similar commodities, and to rationalise the distribution of essential food supplies and other things. It has been calculated that the scheme for "zoning" the railway hauls of certain commodities have given a tremendous result. There used to be very lively criticism of the zoning scheme for fish. I do not think the critics knew that the saving in fish train mileage was no less than 35 per cent.

Sir Herbert Williams: But the result was that we did not get any fish.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Someone got the fish and we saved the trains. Altogether, in the zoning of beer, chocolates, biscuits and many other things, the stupendous total of 276,000,000 ton-miles per annum have been saved.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: Some of that is due to the gravity being so low.

Mr. Noel-Baker: We have also dealt with retail distribution. We have had thousands of schemes throughout the country to control and rationalise the retail delivery of groceries, bread, milk and other things. We have only had two


substantial complaints about these schemes, and I hope that they are both settled by now. The schemes saved us 25,000,000 gallons of motor fuel a year, a saving of 36 per cent., far beyond the target we had set ourselves; they saved us 34,000 vehicles and they saved us manpower on a very considerable scale. These measures to eliminate the needless transport of persons and things, and to reduce the services we run, have made a great contribution towards the solving of the problem with which my Noble Friend was faced.
They have been supplemented by other measures, such as the heavier loading of railway wagons, the staggering of working hours, a very important matter, and a big drive for quicker turn-round. A saving of nine hours on the average journey of a railway wagon means an additional capacity of 55,000 wagon loads, without the extra congestion which 55,000 more wagons on the line would mean. We got a saving of nine hours last winter.
We have had a big drive to accelerate repairs both of railway rolling stock and vehicles on the roads. Eighty-five per cent. of all the work in the railway workshops to-day is on repairs. I venture the assertion that the Vehicle Maintenance Department of the Ministry, which works in close co-operation with the Ministry of Supply, has done a splendid piece of work for the nation by bringing back many thousands of essential vehicles to the roads. I have already said that, like other Ministries, we have been hampered by the shortage of our labour force. My Noble Friend has taken a great variety of measures to make the best use of the forces he can command. Everyone knows about the decasualisation of the officers and men of the Merchant Navy through the Reserve Pool, which is run by the industry, the Shipping Federation and the trade unions, with our grateful assistance and support. Everyone knows about the decasualisation of the dockers by my Minister's schemes on the Mersey and the Clyde, and by the National Dock Labour Corporation in the other ports. Without these schemes, in which the Ministry of Labour have greatly helped us, we should have had the greatest difficulty in keping our ships at sea, and the

docks would have been much less efficient than, in fact, they are.
On the railways great economies of man-power, particularly in the bookkeeping and clerical grades, have resulted from the fact of Government control. In the railway rate book there are tens of millions of different headings, but for Government traffic we have a series of flat rates per ton for different Ministries, whatever the distance and whatever the categories of the goods. The Committee will appreciate the saving when I say that Government traffic is a vast proportion of the freight the railways carry. We have a simplified system for dealing with claims for damage to goods in transport, and a simplified system for demurrage. We rely on other methods to speed the turn round. I believe that before we had had this system one Army depot used to send up its demurrage accounts by the sack full. We have washed out booking tickets for members of the Forces. Their railway warrant serves as their ticket instead. There is no clearing of working expenses between the railway companies. Expenses and receipts go into a common pool. Hon. Members will understand that these are not trifling items, and that together they do much to lighten the burden which the railways have to carry.

Mr. Alexander Walkden: How does my hon. Friend's Department utilise the Railway Clearing House? There used to be a big staff there, much of which should now be unnecessary.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Much of it is unnecessary, and the staff is greatly reduced, and is engaged on other types of work as well. Many of the same economies are obtained by the Road Haulage Organisation in Government and other long distance haulage traffic with which it deals. The Minister also gets economies in the use of transport, the better use of transport, from the close co-operation of the different railway companies which now exists. The companies themselves had done something in that direction before the war, but they would be the first to say that it has gone very much further now. They now really work together as a single team. Passenger stock is a common pool. Their freight wagons, together with the 600,000 private wagons


winch we requisitioned, are also a combined pool managed by a Central Wagon Control, with its own headquarters, which acts for the railways as a whole. Sheets and ropes for goods wagons have been pooled, a very important point in speeding the turn-round. The traffic managers of the companies have a joint conference by special telephone every day. The companies manufacture and repair locomotives for each other. They lend each other locomotives, they work their locomotives on each others' lines, they lend each other skilled staff. Above all, they have cut out competitive routes, so that all traffic now goes by the most speedy route, irrespective of the company to which it belongs.

Mr. Mathers: Will that obtain after the war?

Mr. Noel-Baker: These, at any rate for the war, are great advantages. Again, I hope that we may get something of the same description from the haulage firms within the R.H.O. Besides these measures, my noble Friend must himself plan the traffic programmes and allocate the different flows of traffic to that means of transport which will give the best return. There must be machinery to decide when and how essential cargoes shall be loaded overseas, how incoming cargoes shall be disposed of, and how traffic shall be distributed here between railway, road and canal. That machinery has been created. The loading of every ship that comes here or that leaves these shores is planned and settled by the officials of the Ministry, who deal with tonnage allocation, with sea transport for the Forces, with liners and with tramps, and by our many distinguished represent tatives and missions overseas. The planners must aim at insuring that "deadweight" and "measurement" cargoes shall be, as far as possible, balanced. When loading for operations, they must plan not only what each ship must carry, but the order in which items shall be unloaded on the beaches at the other end. Incoming vessels are allocated to the different ports by our Ministry Diversion Room, where every day, in the light of the latest information about the cargoes, about empty berths, available railway wagons and road haulage capacity, each ship is sent to the port which can best discharge it and best handle the cargoes which it brings.
Internal traffic is no less carefully planned. There meets at intervals the Central Transport Committee, on which each Department that uses transport is represented. That committee plans six months ahead; it makes allocations between roads and railways and canals; it deals with disputes and congestions by ad hoc sub-committees. The allocation of coal traffic between coaster, canal and rail is a case in point; others are the seasonal traffics in home-grown timber, sugar beet and seed potatoes. We have similar committees in the regions. Twelve committees meet, under the regional transport commissioners, with representatives of rail, road and water transport, to decide how traffic shall be carried and what means of transport can best be used. In many of our 78 districts the district transport officers have much the same machinery at their command. So, at every level, there is real and effective co-ordination of the transport system as a whole.
If my account of my Department's work has been intelligible, the Committee will understand that our task is to plan, to decide and to direct. In that task the Ministry have had invaluable assistance from members of the industries, shipping people, road hauliers, and others, who-have come in to help, and who have worked under the leadership of my noble Friend. They have done a splendid job. But the operation of the transport system is done by the different undertakings and companies themselves. They act as our agents, at our direction, but they—the managements and the workers—do the actual daily work. I cannot praise enough the spirit which they have shown. The managements have displayed an energy and a devotion which prove the patriotism by which they are inspired. They think nothing of working 16 hours a day for weeks on end, when there is heavy pressure. The workers have done their very best. Parliament has often expressed its admiration for the Merchant Navy: I will add only this. The Merchant Navy are civilians. In the last war they lost 12,000 men; in this war they have already lost more than twice that number; yet we have always had more recruits than we can train for the job. Now, almost without exception, officers and seamen have volunteered to face the very dangerous hazards of the second front.
Seeing the discharging records of the dockers, one would never guess that in Liverpool, for example, the average age of the dockers is 52. When I was last there, I saw men loading frozen meat into a van. They were lifting frozen carcases, weighing 40 lbs., to a height of seven or eight feet. I asked one what his age was. He said that he was 78, and that his mate was 69. It often happens that a bus conductress must deal in a single shift with 1,000, or even 1,400 fares. That means that, apart from starting and stopping the bus, she must give a ticket and the correct change every 20 seconds of her eight hours on duty. I must not fail to mention the leadership which the workers have had from the trade unions. The spokesmen of the trade unions sit on our advisory committees. We are in daily contact with them, on every problem that arises, and they have always helped us in every way within their power. I must say something about the forbearance and the help of the traders and the general public. No one knows more than I do what they have had to bear: no one appreciates as much as I do the cheerful spirit which they have shown. We must make further calls upon their endurance in the coming year. With the growing volume of traffic, the limited resources at our command, and the diversions and dislocations which the second front must mean, it is not too much to say that inland transport may be the bottleneck of our efforts. The managements, the workers and the public can help us by giving a quicker turn round of everything that moves, by refraining from journeys which they would like to undertake, and by helping the transport personnel in every way within their power. Every sacrifice and every effort they make will be of immediate assistance to the troops who man the ships, the aeroplanes, and the guns.
I believe that the work of my Ministry for five long years has built up an instrument which will stand the strain of the coming operations. I believe that the instrument will make its contribution to the victory that lies ahead. I believe that we have learned many lessons that will be of value when the war is over. I must not abuse the patience of the Committee any further, but I could speak for long about the work we have done to prepare for transport reconstruction in the

future. [Interruption.] I will say something about that if my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) desires, and if I have time. Now I will only mention our road programme, our work on the London plan, our Committee on Road Safety, our work on electrification of the railways, our studies of the future of the canals, our studies of general transport co-ordination—which is of supreme importance—our preparatory work to make the Merchant Navy a great and honourable career, and our work in the Middle East Supply Centre, which may lead to valuable long-term international co-operation. I want to quote one sentence from a recent statement by my noble Friend. He said:
For the first time, we have evidence of the benefits of a fully co-ordinated transport system, and I do not think that the industry would ever want to go back to the conditions prevailing before the war.
In the war, for the first time, we have had real transport co-ordination. We have seen what it can do. Without it, our progress to victory would have been gravely hampered. Transport, in time of peace, is no less important than in time of war. Its efficiency on land, in the ports and estuaries, along the coasts, and on the sea, is a vital factor in the kind of life our people will be able to afford. I hope we shall face the future with the firm determination to learn and to apply all the lessons which our war experience can teach.

Mr. Dabble: We have listened to-day to a statement from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport outlining the work done, the difficulties met and overcome and the services rendered to the nation, in very extraordinary circumstances, during the war period. The hon. Gentleman has dealt in a long and comprehensive speech with rail and road transport, with docks and harbours, canals and coastwise shipping, and I compliment him on the manner in which he has marshalled his facts, and placed his case before the Committee. He has demonstrated that those who are in the service of the transport industry are as anxious to give service to transport, when under the control of the Government, as they were to serve industry previous to the war. The Committee will agree with everything the Minister has said about the service rendered by the transport in-


dustry during this very difficult period. In the short speech which I intend to make, my fault-finding—if fault I have to find with the hon. Gentleman—will refer not to the things that he has said, but to the things he has left unsaid.
The Minister has shown us that there has been a degree of co-operation, under Government control, between the management, trade union officials and the membership of the railway unions and other trade unions affected. I believe that that co-operation might not have been so good, had the Government not taken over control as soon as they did, and had the workers not been convinced that the services they were rendering and the sacrifices that were being made were in the interests of the nation and not in the interests of private individuals. The Parliamentary Secretary has drawn the attention of the Committee very dramatically to the work of the various sections of the transport industry, and his statement will probably help those who, up to the moment, have had little faith in nationalisation, to think again.
I have heard it said on more than one occasion that one of the reasons for the breakdown of Germany during the last war was not the lack of oil or coal, but the breakdown in railway transport, which made it impossible for those essential materials to be brought from the places where they were stored, to the places where they were needed. The lack of rail transport impeded the work of the Army, through non-delivery of materials, and, to a large extent, assisted the breakdown of the German Army itself. No such charge can be laid against the transport industry of this country during this war. The story told to-day, probably for the first time, in this Committee, by the Minister, of those engaged in transport, whether coastwise, on the roads or railways, on the docks and in the harbours, or in the service of the canals, and of the way in which they have carried on, in spite of blackout, dim lights, dangers from air raids and all the other difficulties confronting them, is indeed a credit to the industry. But, after all, it is not enough to eulogise the workers, and my complaint against the Minister to-day is not in the story he has told us of past history since 1939, nor yet in his account of the services which are being rendered to-day. What I would ask him is—what of the future?
I think the workers in those industries, and the people in the country, generally, have a right to know what is the future policy of the Government of the day in regard to the country's transport. I expected, although perhaps I had no right to expect it, that the Minister would say that in view of the services that have been and are being given, he was going to lay before the Committee the future plans of the Government for the transport industry of the country. I must say, in regard to that point, that the Minister has caused no elation amongst those of us who are very closely associated with the industry. After all, this is a striking omission. We believe that transport is as important to the life and wellbeing of the nation as any other factor. The Government's future policy on education has been discussed and accepted. Proposals for a national health scheme have been discussed; housing has been discussed; the question of water supply has been discussed, and one wonders—

The Chairman: The hon. Member will appreciate that, in Committee of Supply, it is only competent to discuss any plans which the Minister is in process of drawing up, within the limits of the year under review and for which expenditure is being incurred.

Mr. Dobbie: Thank you, Major Milner, for that instruction, but I am glad the Minister heard what I said. One wonders why plans for other things affecting the life of the people and the nation may be discussed, while plans affecting the future of the transport of the country have not, on an important occasion like this, been laid before the Committee. The Minister has said that transport is as much a necessity in time of peace as in time of war. I believe, along with him, that it would have been impossible to have had efficiency in the transport of this country to-day, unless the Government had taken full control, at the time they did so. The Minister has said that the needs of the Forces must be met; that transport must be planned and that it cannot be planned without control. When he said that, I anticipated that he was then going to give us some details of the planning of the Government in regard to the future of the transport of this country. As he has said, it is an efficient system at the moment. It is a necessary system in times of peace as well as in times of war, for the con-


veying of goods, food and raw material to the places where they are required. Transport will also play a great part in the development of the new industries of this country. No plan for the development and rebuilding of the country can be complete unless, at the same time, there is a plan for transport. What is to become of our plans for the rebuilding of cities and towns, and the building of new ones; what is to become of the plans for the location of industry without transport? None of the plans that we talk so much about, for the replanning of this country of ours when the war is over, can be complete unless there is a planned transport industry ready to meet the occasion. I have been disappointed that the Minister has not found it possible to tell us something in regard to that matter.
He has talked a good deal on co-ordination. We are all delighted with the amount of co-ordination that he has been able to demonstrate to us to-day. In prewar days there was no co-ordination of the various means of transport. On the contrary, there was fierce competition between rail and road, which was not in the best interests either of the consumer, or of the country generally. I spent the best time of my life working on the railways and it might be assumed that I have some special bias towards the railway industry. On the other hand, the man working on road transport might be biased in favour of his own particular system, and anxious to secure as much traffic as possible for the road as against the railway. Thus, we had the spectacle before the war of heavy commercial vehicles, carrying heavy loads along the trunk roads and making for the same destinations as the fast goods trains on the railways. I am not holding any brief for the railways, but one would have thought it only common sense that the heavy traffic should be carried by the railways in the interests of the public. Our road system was never devised for heavy traffic—not the heavy traffic that is being carried at the moment—and month by month the road casualties tell their own tale.
Only this morning, looking at the Press, I see that the war traffic rush has caused a rise in the number of casualties and that there were 10,300 main-road casualties in March of this year, or 542 more than in March of last year.[HON. MEMBERS:

"Shame."] Hon. Members say "Shame." I regret the tremendous number of casualties and hope that it will be possible for the Minister, or the appropriate authority, to issue more warnings not only to drivers, but to pedestrians, in an endeavour to bring down the dreadful total of casualties which we see recurring year after year. Although there is the difficulty of the black-out—and, as the Minister has said, it must be dreadfully tiring for a driver on the road in the black-out, and with dimmed lights—it must not be forgotten that there are many thousands of new drivers on the roads who are not, probably, in the aggregate, as well skilled as the drivers were previously. Not only drivers, but pedestrians should be warned, and I hope that the Ministry will take what steps it can to draw more attention to this matter. The casualties are becoming nearly as dreadful as they are on the battlefield.

Captain Strickland: Worse.

Mr. Bobbie: It depends on what part of the battlefield you look. When one talks about road transport, and the manner in which the transition took place from peace to war, a good deal of heartburning is caused particularly among many people who believe in unrestricted road transport. Sometimes one has felt that every opportunity has been taken in this House to seize upon small points to weaken the control of the Government. Without this control, undoubtedly, we should have been in a state of chaos whereas, speaking generally, the Ministry has done a good job in the interests of the country. History is repeating itself. In the days of peace we have unrestricted competition, but when war approaches, we say, all of us, on both sides of this Committee, with one accord, that, if the nation is to survive, we must all pull together. What would be the result if half pulled one way, and half pulled in the other direction?

Mr. Leslie Boyce: It would part in the middle.

Mr. Dobbie: And yet that is what our method has been in peace time. I want to know what the policy of the Government is going to be in peace time. I believe that, just as in times of peace we prepare for war, so in times of war, we should be preparing and planning for the day when we can start the rebuilding of the nation. As in the last war, the


Government had no option but to take over the railways and road transport, and we now have co-ordination. It has proved successful. There can be no argument on that. I have not heard anyone here deny it, but again, I want to hear what is the policy of the Ministry in regard to peace time. There has been as we have heard the co-ordination not only of rail and road transport, but of water transport, in order that the best might be made out of all the forms of transport in the country. All that has been said on behalf of the continuity of Government ownership of road and rail transport applies equally to the canal system of -this country. I would have liked the Minister to have told us a little more about the canals. What is to be done with the canals after the war is over? Are the railway companies to be allowed to retain them and are they to be allowed to remain in disuse, as many of them have been, both before and during the war? I should have liked to hear whether the Government have any policy for co-ordirating canals with road and rail transport, for taking complete control of them and for their widening and deepening, and for the alteration of the locks to take ships of a greater capacity. These are some of the things we would have liked t D hear from the Minister.
Having lived and worked the best part of my life a3 a railwayman, and knowing, therefore, a little more about that subject than about other forms of transport, I was glad to hear the Minister say That the railways had done a magnificent job during the war. Control has been an exceptionally good thing for the Government. The men have worked under great hardships, and I was glad to hear the Minister's eulogy of them. It is as well deserved as the eulogy to the men who go down to the sea in ships. The canteen situation has been improved, but there are still not enough canteens for the men. I sometimes think that Members of the House and the general public seldom give a thought to the men who make and maintain the permanent ways of the railway system. When we are going through the country fairly comfortably in a train we hardly ever think about these chaps working in the black-out, in the fog and in the blitz, repairing the lines when they have been damaged and working in all sorts of weather to keep them in running order. Sometimes I think we do not give enough credit—we certainly do not

give enough wages—to the men engaged on this hazardous and essential work. Women are now working in all sorts of jobs on the railways—in signal boxes, as porters on the platforms, in goods sheds. We have had something on the railways that is probably peculiar; we have had an absolute absence of disputes and strikes and a loyalty that cannot be beaten in any other section of industry. There are, however, still many badly paid workers on the railways. There are men who are glad to have the opportunity of working on Sunday to enable them to maintain a reasonable standard of life. If the Government are behind the eulogy that the Minister paid to the services of the railway workers, I would like them to go a little further and help to get their standard of life raised to a more reasonable level.
I hope that the Minister will say something when he replies about handing the railways back to private ownership and control after the war.

Mr. Wakefield: Surely they are now in private and public ownership, but controlled by the Government. The Government do not own the railways. Members of the public, through public companies, own the railways.

Mr. Dobbie: I understand that the Government have leased the railways for the period of the war, and I am asking the Minister what method of rehabilitation of the system will be adopted by the Government if they are handed back to private ownership and control. Will the Government make a complete payment for the wear and tear of the permanent way? Will they re-establish the blitzed stations? Will they reinstate the locomotives and rolling stock and meet the depreciation in the railway workshops?

The Chairman: These subjects cannot be discussed in this Debate. It is open to the hon. Gentleman to ask the Parliamentary Secertary whether he is drawing up plans on these matters, but he cannot go further than that.

Mr. Dobbie: I intended to ask whether these things were outlined in the future planning, if any, which has been considered by the Ministry of War Transport. I understood the Minister to make some reference to the future planning of the railways and to say that his Noble Friend had said that the industry will not


want to go back. I was just thinking aloud and asking the Minister a few questions about his statement. I was wondering what would be the position if the railways were handed back, or, if they were not, whether the Government would come to the House with a scheme for the complete ownership and control of the transport system. Reviewing the Parliamentary Secretary's statement, agreeing with the principles that he has enunciated, and paying tribute to the wonderful service that the Ministry have rendered, a service that could only have been rendered to the nation by Government control, I would ask him to tell us what the intentions of the Government are as to the future of transport in this country.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary indicated, this is the first general Debate we have had on transport for many years. In view of the fact that he referred to schemes that were under consideration by his Department, while not elaborating the details, would it not be desirable in the interests of the Committee that hon. Members should have a little latitude in asking questions about the nature of the schemes, the expenditure involved and the Government's plans for the future of transport?

The Chairman: I am averse to committing myself beforehand. It is only competent in this Committee to discuss the administration of the Department during the year under review. It will be competent to ask whether the Department are engaged in preparing plans, but it would not be competent to inquire into the details of future proposals or plans, particularly as they would probably require legislation. So far as latitude is possible, the Chair will within the proper limits be only too happy to fall in with the wishes of the Committee.

Captain Strickland: Would it be competent for the Committee to discuss the administration during the past year with a view to asking how far it will be continued in the future?

Sir Joseph Nall: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to say that he proposed in the course of a further speech in reply to the Debate to refer to questions of

London planning, electrification of railways, and a number of other matters. I am not sure how far he intends to develop those matters, but may I ask in advance how far we will be in Order in asking questions about them?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It may assist the Committee if I say that we are now engaged on the study of many of the problems which will inevitably arise when the war comes to an end. We are even making certain expenditure on, for example, road safety. We have special people employed helping us to work out our programme of measures which we believe will be required, but it cannot be said that we are preparing legislation for the big questions with which my hon. Friend has just dealt. I wish that that could be said, but it cannot be said. Under your Ruling, Major Milner, questions on the work we are doing would not be out of Order, and it will help the Ministry in their studies if hon. Members will make any proposals they think fit.

Mr. Burden: As there is only study of problems at the present time, cannot this Debate proceed along the line that the Ministry have as yet no plans and that hon. Members can put forward suggestions as to plans that should be further studied by the Ministry?

The Chairman: It is certainly competent to point out useful work which the Ministry could undertake in present conditions during the year in prospect.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Is it any use giving special latitude in this Debate if Members continue to read their speeches verbatim?

Sir Arnold Gridley: I have listened with interest to the discussion on the point of Order, and I take it that, in accordance with the precedent which is fairly well established, if there are any plans dealing with the future of transport, the House will have an opportunity of seeing them detailed in a White Paper before we are committed to approval or disapproval. I hope that it will not be considered inappropriate that I should intervene in this Debate, but I want to protect an important Committee of the House, the Members of which were, I think, wrongly impugned when we had a Debate a week or so ago on a part of the subject we are discussing to-day. Before


dealing with that I would like to make this point clear: in anything I may say I do not want the Minister of Transport or the Parliamentary Secretary to think that I have other than great admiration for the way in which this now huge Department of State has functioned. It has been my good fortune together with some of my colleagues on the Select Committee on National Expenditure to visit various parts of the country inquiring into transport. We have been to every dock undertaking of any importance in England, Scotland and Wales, and we have seen any amount of evidence of the amazingly good work done not only by the officers of the Ministry but by the railway and dock workers whom we have actually seen carrying out their operations under conditions of extreme difficulty. I think those of us who have had the privilege of coming into contact with the noble Lord himself are quite satisfied that he is the right man in the right place, a man of great business experience and one who does not seek the limelight. I hope when the war is over the Public Relations Department of the Ministry may be allowed to tell the wonderful story which, if it were published to-day, might involve the risk of giving information to the enemy.
I want to refer if I may to one or two sentences which were spoken in the Debate to which I have already referred by the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague). He said:
I have had a great deal to do with the Road Haulage Consultative Committee and I was its first chairman.
Perhaps as he was the nurse at the accouchement of this infant, he dislikes any criticism made about it now that it has, to some extent, grown up. The hon. Member went on to say, and this is what I must take particular exception to:
It is exceedingly difficult"—
this was in reply to Mr. Speaker, I think, who had pulled him up—
if one cannot deal with the fact that the Select Committee on National Expenditure have issued a biased statement upon which the whole of this agitation depends.
He also said:
I think I am entitled to say that never in my experience in this House, during which I have read a large number of the reports of this Committee, have I seen such a patently biased document as this."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th April, 1944, Cols. 329–331.]
May I remind the House of how this Committee is constituted? It has some

32 members, 17 of whom are Conservatives, nine Labour, two Liberals, two National Liberals, one Independent and one National. It is a thoroughly representative all-party committee, a good cross-section of the House.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is referring to previous Debates, but he does not seem to be relating this matter to the administration of the Ministry. If he desired to correct certain matters of fact raised in debate relating to the administration of the Ministry he would be in Order, but I gather that he is desiring to deal with questions raised in some previous Debate relating to the Committee on National Expenditure., which, except incidentally or by way of supporting evidence, do not appear to be matters for which the Ministry is responsible.

Sir Patrick Hannon: If a charge of bias is made against the Select Committee on National Expenditure, my hon. Friend is surely entitled, when referring to the Road Haulage Board, to bring the matter before the House.

The Chairman: I think that is so, if it is suggested that the bias is in relation to road haulage and has some direct application to the matters before the Committee.

Sir A. Gridley: I think I shall not be out of Order in what I propose to say. I am going to deal with the evidence contained in the Report which deals with the road haulage section of the Ministry of War Transport. I think an important committee, constituted as this committee is, cannot sit down under such criticism. Although the Report may be drawn up by a section of the committee consisting of five members, that Report is studied line by line and paragraph by paragraph by the whole Committee before it is passed Therefore it must be taken as representing the considered views of this all-party committee. What was the evidence which justified that Report? The first piece of evidence I think every one is familiar with. It consisted of a vast number of questions which were asked by hon. Members, I think from all quarters of the House, of the Minister of Transport regarding complaints of inefficiency in the operation of this road operating scheme. The second consisted of innumerable letters which appeared in the Press


making similar complaints. The third and most important was evidence obtained from witnesses who appeared before the Select Committee. We had I think something like 12 or 14 witnesses who were actually road operators and we tried to weigh up their evidence judicially and sift it carefully before we came to our conclusions.
It also happens that some of the industrial undertakings with which I am associated were very much concerned with this question of road haulage. We had some of our own vehicles, but the bulk of our goods traffic was carried by road operators, and after this scheme came into operation we found ourselves landed in very considerable difficulty because things became much worse than before. That is evidence one cannot possibly ignore. If the Committee will allow me to add one further piece of evidence which is perhaps a little personal, it so happens that I have a married daughter with a husband and two children and a home to look after, but who nevertheless decided, being skilled at operating mechanically-driven vehicles, that she would like to do a job of work in the national interest. She applied to a very big firm in the Midlands to be taken on as a lorry driver. They gave her a ten minute test and took her on immediately. For three years she has been driving vehicles carrying heavy loads all over the country and getting most of her meals in the roadside places where you are told to "pull-in here and get a bite." She told me she gets the best food there that she gets anywhere in the country. I am glad to hear that, because lorry drivers have a decidedly hard life and it is right that they should have the opportunity of being well fed. She confirms what we reported. I have mentioned half a dozen sources from which evidence has been drawn, but of course we also took evidence from Government witnesses.
I do not say for a moment that the Ministry of Transport is to be condemned, because one department, which had to take on an entirely new task and which met with teething troubles, is capable of improvement in its organisation and administration. That is one of the inevitable consequences of a Government Department taking over a section, of industry which in war circumstances may be abso-

lutely necessary but which does present difficulties. I was in the position in the last war of being called in from industry to serve in a Government Department, the Ministry of Munitions, and I found it pretty difficult to adjust myself to the Civil Service system. I give what I may call an illustration of absurdity. I was once transferred with my staff from one hotel to another. We were put into a bedroom on the fourth floor, I think, at the Hotel Metropole. The floor consisted of bare boards. I asked if I might have a carpet. Some days later a member of the establishment department turned up and said "I am sorry you cannot have a carpet because you are only being paid £500 a year."I asked "What is the salary that I must have?" and the establishment officer replied" You must have £1,000 a year or more before you are entitled to a carpet under the Treasury system." I said" Do you know I am getting no salary at all? I am the unpaid controller of this Department. I get £500 a year because I have had to leave my home in Yorkshire and live in London, and this £500 is to cover my living and accommodation expenses." To cut a long story short, I had my carpet when I convinced the establishment department that, outside, I had been in receipt of a four-figure salary before I joined the Ministry of Munitions. That illustrates the kind of system you have to get used to when you come in from outside to a Government Department.

Colonel Arthur Evans: May I interrupt the hon. Member to point out that there is another aspect of the case? I was a military officer in the last war and I was in fact an establishment officer. At that time as soon as an official in the Civil Service received promotion, he began to demand an awful lot of things that he thought necessary to keep up his dignity in his enhanced position. It was in the interest of economy that that point of view was not always accepted by those in authority at the Treasury.

Sir A. Gridley: If I may I would now refer to the Report which contains the matter of this severe criticism by the hon. Member for West Islington, as a reminder to the Committee, because I know Members are so inundated with reports and pamphlets of all kinds, that some may not have even read this Report. I should perhaps, explain that when an important


section of the Select Committee on National Expenditure first looked into this particular order of the Ministry of War Transport relating to control of road traffic over distances of more than 6o miles, the order had been in operation only a relatively short time, and although there were many criticisms, we felt it was not fair to report upon a scheme which had hardly had time to settle down. Therefore, we postponed further consideration for six months and then we examined it. This is what we said:
These more recent inquiries showed that there were widespread complaints, alleging that under the control of the Ministry of War Transport much valuable time was being lost, there was a heavy mileage of empty running, and far too many journeys were made in which vehicles ran outwards only lightly loaded and returned empty; a state of affairs which did not previously prevail. As a consequence of the failure of the control system there is much avoidable light loading and empty running, so that the ends desired by the Ministry of War Transport are defeated. Numerous cases were quoted where a convoy of empty lorries had been sent long distances while goods were awaiting transport to the very areas to which it was going.'
Was that true or was it not? It is rather significant that this Report, which is based on evidence received in December, 1943, and January, 1944, was issued on 16th March. Might I call the attention of the Committee to this Memorandum which was issued by the Ministry of War Transport on 14th February? It is headed, "Unbalanced Traffic—Long Distance." I will read only the first two sections of it:
I. Hitherto it has been the general practice to assign to road transport only short distance traffic or traffic which the railways have indicated that they cannot carry or of which they desire to be relieved. This has meant that when traffic between two towns or areas is unbalanced, so that empty running in one direction is unavoidable, return loads have not generally been available for all the road transport capacity on offer. With the growing need to secure the greatest use of railway wagon stock it may sometimes be that, although rail capacity is available, it would be advantageous that traffic should be carried by road as a back load in order to facilitate the turn-round of wagons and their dispatch direct to points where they are urgently needed for loading.
2. It is considered desirable—
and may I call my hon. Friend's particular attention to this:
—that restrictions should now be removed upon return loading of suitable traffic for road movement between towns or their vicinities where there is consistent bad balancing of road traffic and consequently there is available a

regular, or fairly regular volume of road vehicle carrying capacity at present unused.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to say that the evident intention of that instruction was to improve the working of the railways, and not that it was thought that the working of the road vehicles was wrong.

Sir A. Gridley: That may have been the intention, but I do hope my hon. Friend will not think that the administration of the road haulage system is flawless.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I will give my hon. Friend a lot of figures in due course.

Sir A. Gridley: I would ask the Committee to believe that my colleagues of the Select Committee on National Expenditure do not issue biased Reports. We consider the evidence given before us, both on behalf of the Government and on behalf of those whose interests may be affected, with all the care and judicial-mindedness and lack of bias that we can possible give. As I have said, our Report does not criticise the administration of the Ministry of War Transport as a whole. I have paid my tribute to the great work that the Ministry has done. The only complaint we have at present is against this particular department of the Ministry. The industry does not want the scheme which they have drawn up to be torn up and discontinued. They are anxious to give it every possible support. What they do ask—and I think this is the view of my colleagues on the Select Committee—is that the scheme in which flaws have been discovered should be looked at again, and every possible improvement made in it.

Mr. Montague: Before the hon. Member sits down, as I made the charge of bias against the Report of the Select Committee, may I ask him why it is that, while all the disadvantages and difficulties of the railways are fully allowed for, in that part which deals with road haulage anything that has gone wrong and every anomaly are charged to the account of the Ministry? Also, why is all the evidence only from road haulage owners, even where they refer to the reactions of the drivers of vehicles upon the roads?

Sir A. Gridley: I do not think my hon. Friend was here during the earlier part of my statement.

Mr. Montague: I am sorry I was not.

Sir A. Gridley: Had he been, I think he would have found that I dealt with the points he has just raised. In aswer to his further assumption that there was bias, may I say that this particular paragraph of the Report was most carefully considered before my colleagues and I agreed to it:
The suggestion has been made that complaints from the road haulage industry are exaggerated and that nothing is heard from the many who are satisfied with the working of the scheme. That causes for complaint occur is admitted by the Ministry, but they hold that these are isolated cases. Your Committee have given due consideration to this defence, but the volume of evidence actually put before them, apart from the criticisms which have been made in Parliament and the Press, is too great to be dismissed as originating from a factious few.

Mr. Montague: There is no evidence other than that from the road hauliers themselves.

Sir Joseph Nall: My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) quite rightly maintained that the Committee's Report was not a biased document. I need not go into the composition of the Committee because I only want to remind hon. Members that, throughout the road transport industry, there is overwhelming evidence in support of the things said by my hon. Friend's Committee. I would remind hon. Members, quite shortly, of the three headings which sum up what that Report says:

"Roads.

(4) That the Ministry should immediately and closely re-examine the present freight charges and adjust them where necessary.

(5) That the Ministry should re-examine the routine office work entailed by the Road Haulage Organisation with a view to simplifying it as much as possible.

(6) That a close scrutiny should be made of the work of Divisional and Area Haulage Officers, and more particularly that of Unit Controllers, with a view to the more economical use being made of lorries and their carrying capacity."

That sums up all that my hon. Friend's Committee have to say, but they are fundamental points, which have never been refuted by any substantial evidence. I know we must not rehash previous Debates, and I have no desire to do so, except to say that I did not agree with some friends of mine who put down a Prayer to stop the Regulation which the Parliamentary Secretary wanted, because

I thought the hon. Gentleman was right on the occasion of the previous Debate. In that Debate, however, I think he was hard on my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, whose Committee criticised the operation of the haulage scheme, because anybody who knows anything at all about the business goes on hearing day after day of glaring defects. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) had a good deal to say in that Debate, and I interrupted him. However, I will make no more reference to the Debate itself, because my hon. Friend's Committee, in criticising the scheme, called attention to the position of the unit controllers, the area haulage officers, and the divisional haulage officers.

It is a fact that the unit controllers are not in a proper position of authority to manage the business which they are supposed to be managing. I will give quite a short illustration. When they were running their own business as managers responsible for its good conduct, they would be subject from time to time to spates of traffic which were more than they could deal with. Their common practice was to confer with a neighbour, who might have a correspondingly slack day, and would do some of the work for him. One would suppose that in this scheme unit controllers should be allowed, at least, their common sense business freedom to adjust matters between each other and sub-let or hire each other's vehicles. They can do nothing of the kind. They have to report to the area haulage officers. It takes time to do that, and some of these officers do not even give a decision. When A cannot do the job they do not consult B or C, they report to the divisional haulage officer and he sometimes reports back to his own regional commissioner.

I have a case in mind of three important industrial centres. Let us call them A, B and C. Two of them are in one region, one is in another region. There is a heavy one-way loading from B to A in one region, and there is an equally heavy loading in the other direction from A to C, C being in a second region. It is quite common for the man at B to be short of vehicles for sending traffic to A and when he gets into touch through the area officer with unit controls in A, he finds a lot of vehicles have gone from A to C which could perfectly wel


have called at B on the way back, but they are not allowed to do so because C is in another divisional control area, and instead of sending the wagons from A, who have arrived at C, back to call at B, and take one-way traffic to A, they are dispersed all over the country by the control in the region to which C belongs. That would not happen under ordinary conditions.

Mr. Gallagher: The hon. Member is talking nonsense.

Sir J. Nall: But it does happen under this scheme.

Mr. Gallacher: You all have different contractors.

Sir J. Nall: My hon. Friend's Department has been wrongly advised. I am not blaming the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary; they listen to people, but they do not always get a proper census of voices. They listen to the few, and not to the many. These muddles were not arising in 1940, although a great deal has been said about the chaos of road transport Road transport was not in any state of chaos. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, it was not. There was a shortage of vehicles.

Mr. Gallacher: There was no shortage of profits.

Sir J. Nall: But a shortage of vehicles did not imply—

Mr. Noel-Baker: With respect, vehicles were often working on non-essential work, when really urgent work essential to the national interest could not be done.

Mr. Gallacher: Put them in gaol right a way.

Sir J. Nall: A series of pools was organised by the trade at the ports, and these pools succeeded in clearing the heavy arrivals of traffic from the ports with, as far as I know, only one single notable exception. A lot has been said about calling in Army lorries, but I think the Minister referred to it as one exception. The organisation of transport was not in a state of chaos, there was just not enough transport available. Hon. Members must not confuse shortage with chaotic management, because down the years there has been restriction on the expansion of road transport. Therefore, it is not the fault of those people who work

it if there was not enough transport at certain hours of peak loading. At a later stage, after these pools were working, the Ministry set up their chartered fleet, which was intended to create a centrally controlled organisation to deal with essential and non-essential traffic. However, events operated against my hon. Friend's Department, because no sooner had they got the chartered fleet going for the purpose of dealing with an increasing traffic, than the trouble about rubber arose, and the organisation had to be put into reverse gear to stop moving traffic by road, and so we got the present scheme.
Let the Committee remember, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, that the present scheme was organised, not to deal with an increasing volume of traffic on the roads, but with the deliberate intention of keeping in care and maintenance a mass of transport which it was intended should not be used until some special emergency arose, and in the meantime traffic was to be diverted to rail. This present organisation was primarily created for the care and maintenance of vehicles in partial use and now finds itself overloaded with a great spate of traffic which had not been budgeted for by the Ministry when they created their scheme. Therefore, it is not adequate for the present situation. There are not enough controlled units, and the units which do exist are not properly geographically located. There are half a dozen controlled units in a city like Manchester, but in some important towns outside there are none at all. Lorries are ordered about by a controller in another town who knows nothing whatever about the business in the town where the uncontrolled vehicles are operating. So the scheme is incomplete. In regard to the geographical position of the units the present position has arisen from the fact that there was great opposition in the industry, and because the Ministry accepted as controlled units only those who rushed at them and were glad to sign up for fear of being put out of usiness altogether. Others did not want to be controlled.

Mr. Gallacher: Sabotage.

Sir J. Nall: No, nobody has sabotaged this scheme. I, for one, will do anything I can to help to create more controlled units.

Mr. Gallather: The hon. Member is helping all right.

Sir J. Nall: In organising the scheme a further, and fundamental, mistake the Ministry made was to ignore the so-called clearing-houses. I know a great many road haulage operators who do not like the clearing-houses, but one has to face the fact that the clearing-houses were the mainstay of the small man. They knew the small man and his needs and his capacity and they were more closely in touch with the general pooling system of traffic than almost anybody else in the industry. Yet the clearing-houses have been deliberately excluded from this scheme, and I think the Ministry was wrongly advised in leaving them out. If the Government want to make the best use of the pooling system, eliminate waste mileage, and ensure priority for essential traffic, these things must be organised by men who understand the business, instead of which the Ministry have quite needlessly and foolishly left out those who could have been of most use to them.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The hon. Member will realise that there was no unanimous opinion in the industry itself and that my Noble Friend and I met representatives of the clearing-houses on more than one occasion.

Sir J. Nall: I know there was opposition in the industry, but it came from those firms which do not work in concert with the clearing-houses. If the Ministry are to take an unbiased, over-all, view of the whole industry, they must have regard to every section, whether they agree with each other or not. It is the business of the Ministry to overrule the prejudices of the different sections.

Mr. Walkden: Does the hon. Member advocate more State control. Is that his policy?

Sir J. Nall: For the period of the war it was realised that, in every industry, State control was inevitable. Nobody has disputed that, or has asked for this control to be abolished. What I am saying is that if you do have control, it must be efficient and adequate. It is no good having lop-sided control, as we have now, and that is why I did not put my name to the Prayer on Regulation 73B, which was discussed by the House recently. As

I have said, it is quite wrong to assume that there was a state of chaos. There never has been, but there has been inadequacy. In some quarters there is inadequacy now, which is aggravated by the waste mileage occurring under the present system. To get the scheme working more adequately and economically, the unit controllers must be allowed greater operational freedom. They must be given the ordinary liberty of interchange =of traffic between each other, which they would have in ordinary business, and in the matter of office routine and forms they ought not to be held up and tiresomely humbugged by the establishment branch. The other day I met one of these men in a train travelling from a Northern town. I knew that he was doing a big job and was "snowed-up" with work. I asked him why he was going to London and he said he wanted two more clerks. I asked him why he need go to London on such an errand and he replied that he had to do so because he had to get permission to engage them. That is Government control.

Mr. Noel-Baker: With respect, it is a question of the shortage of labour.

Sir J. Nall: Can it be said to be in the interest of economy and efficiency that a man in a very responsible position, managing large volumes of traffic, should have to waste a whole day in coming to London to argue about having two more clerks in his office? The Parliamentary Secretary and his Ministry have the wrong idea about road haulage. In his otherwise admirable speech the hon. Gentleman assumed that everything was lovely in the garden, just because we have Government control. Of course, that is very far from the fact and it is rather a pity that this Debate has gone on such a narrow line. In fact, the hon. Gentleman opened on a narrow line, because he said nothing about shipping and ports with which his Ministry have to deal.
When this joint Ministry of Transport and Shipping was created the House was doubtful whether it was wise to put these matters under one Department. I remember being asked about this concentration in one Department and I said that it was the right thing to do, and would work, provided it was properly divided into divisions dealing with the different forms of


transport it would have to handle. I said it would need seven or eight divisions, each with a director who should be fully conversant with the branch of transport with which the division was dealing—ships, ports, harbours, railways, roads and, particularly, equipment. In relation to railways the Ministry really would not claim to be closely directing the operation of the railways to-day. It is being done by the Railway Executive and railway managements and in the case of shipping it is being done by people from the industry who know shipping. In the case of road transport there is no bother about bus transport; all the bother arises over goods transport, and it is simply because there is too close control, or dictatorship, at the top. The unit controllers and area haulage men have not adequate liberty of action. Geographical distribution is bad, some units are too large for the men supposed to be managing them and some of the areas are not of the appropriate size for the area haulage officer to deal with.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that when he wound up the Debate he would deal with certain possibilities of the future. I wonder whether he can give us some indication of the lines on which the Ministry are thinking in relation to trunk roads. Some years ago the Ministry of Transport took over complete control of some lengths of Class I roads. This was all to the good, because it secured a more uniform system of maintenance and an evenly thought out programme of improvement and it is to be hoped that at not too distant a date a further considerable mileage will come under direct ministerial responsibility. But I hope that in doing that the Ministry will not cease to use the existing highway authorities as agents, because if trunk roads on a large scale are to be maintained by centralised organisation, with the local organisation maintaining all other A and B roads in county area's, we should get duplication in operations, which would be extravagant. Moreover, if the count, highway authorities are divorced from any kind of consultation relating to these trunk roads it may well be that improvements may be carried out in many instances on lines which would not be appropriate or well advised by local. opinion.
That brings me to the attitude of the Ministry with regard to motor-ways. To what extent does the Ministry propose to

augment our road system by motor-way construction and to what extent will widening or improvement be effected? I a m not sure that a case can be made out for the immediate adoption of the big programme of the County Surveyors' Society, but there should be a long view and what is done stage by stage should be as a sectional part of that long view. I know one county where there is 40 miles of the Great North Road going through it. There it is proposed to have nine different by-passes in addition to the three or four which have already been made. One of those is seven or eight miles long. You get into a position where it would be more sense to make a new stretch of road altogether and not deal with nine different by-passes in a series of loops on a 4o mile stretch. It would not use more land, it would cost less money and make a better job if, in instances like that, the Ministry resorted to the general proposal of motor-ways, without making them into motor-ways for the time being, or calling them motor-ways for that matter, but construct in the years ahead longer sections of main trunk road which would avoid a series of by-passes. It would be more economical and more in the interest of the traffic.
But this question of the future requirements of the roads will depend on national policy. On what lines are the Government thinking about the future of railways and road transport? We hear a lot about coordination but we shall never reach finality unless a definite decision is imposed from the House, not necessarily by new legislation. I believe it can be done under the existing law. The war has shown that the country cannot do without a railway system. Equally, it cannot do without a road transport system. What the country has to make up its mind about is whether the railways, whoever owns them, are to be self-supporting. If they are to be run on a basis which is not self-supporting, and the Treasury has to make up the deficit, are the trading community and the public prepared to carry a heavy burden of taxation to make up the deficit, or are they alternatively prepared to accept some balancing between road and rail?
A great deal has been talked about rail/ road conferences and a road rates structure. I think that is so much waste paper. A rail/road conference will


achieve nothing as long as private traders can do what they like under a C licence. It is the right of anyone to own his own vehicle. Anyone can own a motor car, and that has been extended down the years to the ownership of private lorries and so on. That will obviously have to go on, and the Government will have to put it to the trading community—do they wish to retain the right. to use private vehicles without any limitation on the zone or the scope of that user? If they do, obviously a road rates structure, for the haulage trade will never be of the slightest use because the great firms will say, "These road rates are no use to us. We can do the job cheaper ourselves and we will buy more wagons. We will increase our C fleets." That will bring the railways into deficit and the Exchequer will have to make good the deficit. The time is coming when the Government will have to say to industry, through the F.B.I. or Chambers of Commerce, "Are you prepared to pay taxation to make good the railway deficit or will you agree to some reasonable balancing between road and rail?"
I do not think many traders realise what is happening under the licensing system now. If a manufacturer hires transport from an A or B licence holder he can only use it within the limits accorded to the holder of the licence. If his neighbour in the same industry buys his own fleet of vehicles with a C licence he suffers no such limitation. Therefore, there is what the law calls an undue preference in other respects The present licensing system sets up an undue preference between traders in the same industry, according to whether they own their own transport or hire it. I think—and many of my friends in the transport industry will not agree with me—that this difference between classes of licences has to be very considerably narrowed down. If it is right for an A or B licence to be restricted in its scope of user, it' is only logical that the owner of a C licence should submit to a similar restriction in his scope of user and, unless that is done, there can be no co-ordination between road and rail. So long as a C licence holder can do what he likes with his private vehicles, a road rates structure, road/ rail conference and co-ordination cannot be achieved.
I would like to know what steps the Ministry are taking to confer with representatives of traders on this matter. It is not for the carriers, the road haulage interests, alone to say what precisely has to be done, because transport is for the service of industry, which must be fully acquainted with what the Government are doing in this matter. Is industry prepared to make proper use of the railway system balanced with the use of the road system or does it want freedom to use the road, to the ultimate decay and elimination of the rail?
The future of the railway system, to which the Minister said he would make some reference, raises the matter of the planning of London. I hope that the Ministry are not giving undue credit to the higher flights of absurdity in some of the plans we have seen, especially in those which propose to eliminate from London practically all the main line systems, by putting the termini back to other places. For example, Waterloo Station, which was built within the lifetime of many Members of this House, would be pushed back to somewhere near Clapham Junction.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): The question of the replanning of London would be out of Order, on this Vote.

Sir J. Nall: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Williams. What I said was only in accordance with a statement previously made about something that the Minister was to deal with later. I ask whether the hon. Gentleman could give some indication of the alternative plans on which his Ministry is working in this current year. I understood him to say that the Ministry were engaged on those matters. I was not asking him for an outline. of new legislation but for some indication, especially as regards electrification, which was only one of the subjects he mentioned. Future planning depends on these practical matters. We have to realise that the objection to railway systems in urban areas is mainly due to the smoke. Therefore, if the main line companies, either with or without Government assistance, eliminate the smoke nuisance, especially in built-up London, a different aspect will be put upon the future of the railways. On the other hand, there can be no point in knocking down viaducts built for the railways only,


in order to build new viaducts for overhead roads, as is visualised in one of these plans. There can be no point in trying to put the main line termini under ground, as some people suggest. It is impossible to visualise Waterloo or Paddington underground. In the meantime I hope the Minister will not be misled by suggestions that any part of the transport industry is trying to sabotage his control, or is not prepared to co-operate in his control. Those who are involved in these matters are just as anxious to further the war effort as is anybody else.

Mr.MaeLaren: It is incumbent upon me, and my duty to the Committee, to be as short as possible, particularly after such a dreadful, meandering speech as that which we have just heard. I want to come swiftly to the point. First, I congratulate the Minister on his speech, He had a very broad canvas to cover, and other hands might have covered it with a dull picture. The Minister took full advantage of certain passages to give interesting and colourful touches which stimulated one's interest in the subject, and that cannot be said of such a speech as the one we have just experienced.
I come to the matter which has brought me to my feet. I am not speaking on behalf of any section of the industry, but since I have been working in the Midlands in close touch with one of the Ministries, I have been forced to take particular interest in the conditions prevailing among wagon drivers. The Minister said that when one contemplated the work a driver had to do on dark, foggy nights, by dim light, perhaps on steep roads covered with ice and with a heavy load behind—the driver being on that road for the first time in his experience—one realised what a dreadful state of mind such a man was liable to get into, after being nut for four or five hours. What are the facts? These men stop at roadside places, which are called road inns, to which they go for recreation and refreshment. I was getting report after report as to the horribly insanitary and filthy conditions of those places. What did I do? It is not fair that I should mention the name of one of the most prominent and efficient Ministers of the Government, but he and I had occasion to do some midnight inspection of factories. When I told him of the state of affairs to which I have

referred, he immediately came with me, and out we went on the roads. We went to two or three of these hostels. We went to one in particular. What did the woman there tell us? She said that the place was infested with prostitutes and she told us how difficult it was to keep them out of the place.
After hours of difficult driving, these men want to have a place where they can find comfort and cleanliness, but what does one get when one visits these places? These inns have special licences from the Ministry of Food to obtain food supplies. One result is that much of the food is consumed, very often round about seven, eight or nine o'clock at night. A lorry driver who has been on the road for hours, arrives after nine o'clock, or round about midnight, and there is none of the food left. The drivers tell me it is usually a case of what they call "beans and toast." I do not want to make the picture seem too morbid, but were I to give it in all its details, it would be so staggering as to be almost unbelievable. We must remember that the men on these wagons are often handling food from the Ministry of Food. When they get to certain inns, the beds are so filthy that the men refuse to take the coverings off and they lie on the beds with their overalls on. We went into some of these inns. We went to one that was supposed to be an outstanding success. We found a room about 30 feet by 40 feet in size, and we discovered about 40 beds in that place. When we got inside we had to walk sideways in order to manoeuvre our bodies round the beds. I can well imagine 40 or 50 men getting in there at night, with the blackout keeping out ventilation, and we can picture what goes on there.
I will read a passage that will give a crystallised picture of the impression left on our minds after our examination of these roadside inns, or cafes, as they are called. It was our impression, after examination of the road running between London and Liverpool. I took a road which was typical, and is probably the busiest in the country. It was that between London and Liverpool. This road has been taken stage by stage and each considerable cafe on it is briefly described.
It will be seen from this that, out of 30 of these cafes on this road, not more than 10 are classed by the men as fair and only five are considered to provide reasonably clean re-


freshment and accommodation. Only three have sleeping provision. The majority are far from being either adequate or hygienic. There are no rest or recreational facilities other than overcrowded bedrooms or eating rooms, on the whole road, allowing even for the overcrowding of 420 men who are generally using this road. Accommodation in publichouses has been deliberately excluded, although the men refer to this as being on the average the best provision for them. Publichouses cater for these men and the men go there rather than resort to the cafes. They are driven to the local public-houses, which is not altogether a good thing for men who are driving on the roads.
I am deliberately cutting myself down, in order to concentrate on this one point and I am not going any further than that.
After accumulating the details with which he and I came into contact, usually by night and in all kinds of weather, during which we saw men sleeping out in their own lorry cabins rather than go into the huts, I came back to my office in the Potteries. I then got into contact with a number of disinterested men. I held two or three conferences with the transport workers in the area. We got out a general statement of their experiences. Then my disinterested colleagues set to work to plan a hostel. We planned it in detail. The other men on the job were professional surveyors and architects. Nothing was left out. There were a drive-in and drive-out, petrol supply, recreation rooms, cubicles and all the other things necessary to constitute a rest centre for men on the road. These plans were made without charge. No charge was even made for professional advice. We even went into actuarial detail so as to make it clear that these hostels would pay for themselves after they had been in use for three or four years, taking into account also the number of meals that would be served.
I forwarded these plans to the Ministry in London more than two years ago. The Minister knows that I delivered the plans, giving the whole details without any charge or thought of charge, but purely because we were trying to do something, in a distinterested way, to put right what I had seen in the Midlands. These plans were buried in oblivion. Nothing has ever happened. Afterwards I even tried to redeem the plans, but they had gone adrift in the Ministry. Time after time those transport workers have met in my area and have carried resolutions which have been forwarded to the head office in London, but they have only been

rebuffed. All this happened while this dreadful state of affairs continued on the road. Now I am asking the Minister, despite all that has happened in the past, that we should forget the past. For heaven's sake cannot something be done to see that these men are catered for properly on the road?
I will forget all that I have done and all that' my friends have done, if only something will emerge. Otherwise it was no use going round to inspect these cafes. I remember we went to one place which was a wooden hut, practically next door to a filthy lavatory, near which the men had to eat their food. It is no use saying that this state of affairs will be rectified. These places have to be wiped out. A swift review will have to be made of the places where these men eat. I remember one place just outside Newcastle-under-Lyme. I think more lorries stop at that junction than at any other place in that part of the country. Something ought to be done in the way of a swift erection of a canteen at suitable points. Do not let us regard this reform as too expensive. It may be that, if there is to be a national road plan, the points at which the traffic will stop may be different. I quite appreciate that, but I ask the Minister to go back to the Ministry with a determination that this state of affairs shall be rectified before the oncoming of this winter. I have now to keep an appointment and shall have to leave, but I will consult HANSARD tomorrow morning to see what the Minister has had to say on the subject of these cafes.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Before my hon. Friend goes, perhaps I might inform him that I have seen the plans to which he referred, and have given them the very closest attention. I will refer to them during my reply.

Mr. Leslie Boyce: There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that those who are engaged in operating the national transport services during the war have acquitted themselves extremely well. This remark applies not only to managements and staffs, but right down through the various sections and grades of the transport workers. A large proportion of those services has, in the ordinary course, fallen to the railways and, in the words of the Director of Movement at the War Office:


the railways have done, and are doing, a magnificent job of work, and they also came through the blitz with flying colours.
It would be superfluous for me to attempt to elaborate such a public tribute as that, corning from one who has full inside knowledge of all the facts such as is not available to hon. Members.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to certain advantages which, he said, had accrued to the community as the result of the more unified working on the part of the railways and the pooling of rolling-stock during the war. He was followed by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie), who regretted that the rules of procedure prevented him from arguing that it would consequently be in the public interest if the railways were removed from the sphere of private enterprise and were nationalised after the war. It must not be forgotten that it was private enterprise which so developed and organised the railways that they were ready and able, at a moment's notice, to take the immense strain that was put upon them when hostilities broke out. They have never failed to bear that strain since, in spite of Dunkirk, in spite of our having two of the mightiest Armies in the world's history, with their full equipment, in these islands to-day, in spite of the blitz, the blackout and the loss of 110,000 railway personnel to the Services and of ten thousand and one other difficulties. During the war period, when they have achieved such a magnificent record, the railways have not been nationalised. They have been managed and operated by the same men and women who managed and operated them in peace time. The Controller of Railways at the Ministry of War Transport, Sir Alan Anderson, who is a former Member of this House, is an experienced director of the L.M. and S. and is working with and through his former managerial colleagues.
The present pooling of rolling-stock, which applies mainly to different types of railway wagons, chiefly coal wagons, of which there are approximately 580,000 privately owned, apart from those owned by the railway companies themselves, has met the general convenience in war-time. It has by no means been an unmixed blessing to the railway companies, the collieries, the coal factors or the nation. When the Minister is considering future plans, I would like him to bear in mind that the system of privately owned coal

wagons, which has grown up in this country, has been a sound economic proposition from the national standpoint from the very beginning. It owed its inception to the fact that the railway companies were either unable or were not prepared to provide the colliery owners or coal factors with wagons on the same enterprising terms as others were prepared to do.
The simple and complete justification for the private ownership of wagons lies in the fact that it has always paid the coal mines and the coal factors either to own them or to hire them from the private owners. If they could have handled or transported their coal a penny a ton more cheaply by getting their wagons direct from the railway companies, the private owners of wagons would have been put out of business long ago. This system has, therefore, been of unquestionable benefit to the consume in the price he has paid for his coal. Moreover, as every hon. Member who has had mining experience must know, wagons constitute the cheapest form of storage of coal at the mine. They save the extra handling in putting coal on the ground and having to pick it up again, apart from the loss of coal involved. Furthermore, the privately-owned wagon does not normally incur demurrage charges, which can be a very heavy item of expenditure, so long as it is at the mine or in a privately-owned siding. These savings, which are substantial, all cheapen the handling and the transport charges which must ultimately be borne by the consumer.
A decision has not yet been reached as to whether these wagons, together with those owned by the railway companies, are to remain in a common national pool or in regional pools or both, or to revert to their pre-war position. The whole matter is in the process of being thoroughly examined in all its aspects in order to arrive at whatever decision may be the best possible from the national point of view. This is an exceedingly complicated subject and it embraces many types of wagons which are required by the different colliery companies. Some of these colliery companies must have wagons with side and end doors, others Must have them with bottom doors or wagons of a certain height in order that they may go under the screens, and so forth. Some wagons are only suitable for use in pit to port traffic, while others are equally


suitable for long distance hauls. I think I have said enough for hon. Members to see that the desirability to keep the wagons in a national pool or in regional pools, or otherwise to deal with them, should not primarily be a political issue. It is certainly not a matter which can properly be settled to the best interest of the community by mere reference to party labels.
I should like to say a passing word about the often made suggestion that we should use a much larger type of railway wagon of, say, 40 or 50 tons carrying capacity or even larger still. As one of the principal builders of wagons in the country nothing would suit me better. The argument for this proposal is that it should be more economic to haul trains made up of a less number of larger units than ones consisting of a greater number of smaller units. Unfortunately, neither the logic nor the economics of this question is quite so simple as all that. To begin with, there are very few mines in this country, if indeed there are any at all. which would be able to cope with these bigger types. They would not go under the screens and the mines do not possess the equipment capable of handling them. If they were loaded with coal for export, it would be found that the port installations could not cope with them either. Again, let us take the case of the small coal factor, of whom there are hundreds throughout the country, who unloads his coals at one of the railway companies' sidings. He needs a small wagon not exceeding 13 tons capacity which he can unload quickly, not a large one on which he would have to pay heavy demurrage charges before he could absorb the contents. These are but two or three of the many weighty considerations which have to be borne in mind when discussing this apparently simple, but in reality very difficult and complicated, question.
No one of any consequence in the transport industry would deny that there are certain defects in the present arrangements. These are not due to inability or inefficiency on the part of management or employees. They arise naturally from the fact that each of the different forms of transport in this country has developed separately and independently during the last Too years, and from the fact that they have hitherto not been properly coordinated or been given equal treatment

by the Government and Parliament. This leads me to say that the record of Parliament in dealing with internal transport matters since the last war is not one of which any of us has any right to be particularly proud. Be that as it may, it will be our duty to the nation to ensure that its transport system after the war is the most efficient, most economical and, generally speaking, the best that it is possible to provide. This cannot be brought about by treating the different transport agencies—road, rail, coastwise, canal and air—as though they were each in a watertight compartment and quite separate from and independent of one another. In other words, as they are all engaged in performing similar functions, the system of national transport must be envisaged and planned as a single integrated whole. This is not inconsistent with private enterprise, and in no other way can we hope to avoid wasteful overlapping and uneconomic competition or give to the travelling community, or to industry and trade, the full benefit of the properly balanced and co-ordinated service which they require.
Before the war, we had many discussions in this House regarding the inequality of treatment given by Parliament to the various forms of transport. It is not my intention to-day to dwell upon the very real grievances of the railway companies in this respect. I have ventilated them at length in the past and may have to do so at some time in the future. All I wish to do now is to emphasise the fact that there can never be a proper or statesmanlike solution of the national transport problem unless it be founded upon the principle of absolute equality of treatment by Government and Parliament of all forms of transport in the future.

Mr. Hynd: I wish to bring this Debate back to the realities of the subject we are dealing with, and to remind the Committee that transport, and particularly railway transport, is in the front line of this war, whether one considers our side or the other side. I have probably addressed more broadcast appeals to the workers of Europe than any Member of this House during this war, and in practically every one of these, the theme has been an appeal to the workers on the railways and in transport generally, whether in France,


Italy, Belgium or Germany, to collaborate with us in the war, which to us at least is a war largely of transport facilities. That has been underlined, so far as our country is concerned, in the speech by the Parliamentary Secretary to-day, and in all the reports and other statements in the Press and elsewhere dealing with the war and the transport situation.
Whereas, on the Continent, the task of the railway and other transport workers has been the destruction of the enemy's transport, in which they are playing a very important role in conjunction with and in collaboration with our bombing forces in preparation for the coming attack on Europe, the task of the railways and the other transport services in this country during this war has been, on the contrary, to build up the maximum efficiency in speed and delivery of the goods. In that task I think they have admirably succeeded and no tribute that can be paid in this Committee could be adequate to the efforts which have been put forward by the men and women in these services, particularly in the railway service, during the terrible years some of them have had to go through, especially during the heavy bombing raids on this country, and the very difficult conditions generally that have faced transport in the last two or three years.
Many of the engine drivers and firemen—I emphasise the engine drivers because of the particular strain that rests upon these men—have had to work hours which before the war would have been regarded, even under normal peace-time conditions, with full lighting in the marshalling yards and on the main roads, as something more than exaggerated. Under war-time conditions it is not an uncommon thing for men to be working 16 and 20 hours before getting home for a break, sometimes a short break, and the difficulty that is being reached now is that whilst they have put up with these conditions, and have carried out the task so far as their physical endurance has made it possible, there is, after all, a limit to that physical endurance, even of railwaymen. One of the problems facing the railway trade unions at the present time, and which no doubt has been brought prominently to the notice of the Minister, is the fact that the manpower situation on the railways is reaching a very serious state. I think the

Minister should consider very seriously, in. conjunction with the other Ministries which may be responsible, this question of man-power on the railways if the railways are to be maintained in their present state of efficiency and to carry out the tasks which await them.
In face of the colossal responsibilities and the tremendous pressure that has been put on our transport services under present conditions, I think we must recognise that the Government could have done no other than have shown the elementary wisdom of taking control of that industry at the very outset. The speech we had from the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) I think underlines that very clearly, and shows us pretty clearly, if we use our imagination in relation to the illustrations he gave, what might have been the position if in face of the responsibility of running a war like this and coping with the traffic of machinery, men, equipment, supplies of all kinds under these wartime conditions this task had been left to the friends of the hon. Member for Hulme and to private enterprise. He gave the case of A., B. and C. operators and suggested that in dealing with a war situation like this, when there must be a central organisation of some kind, the simple thing to do, and what private enterprise would probably have done under the same conditions, was that if a man in one region was short of a lorry he would phone to a friend in the next region and ask him to send along the lorry or lorries he required. While that might be all right under peace time conditions for two traders entirely independent of any consideration other than their own interests, it cannot be done in war-time.
Consideration has to be given to what may be the requirements on the other side; and a number of vehicles available in a particular region are scheduled, and are supposed to be on call at any time for priority traffic. To those of us who have had any experience of A.R.P. work, in the National Fire Service or anything of that kind, that is obvious. But that is what is wanted by those who would have preferred that private enterprise should be left to deal with the situation. When the hon. Member talks about the clearing houses, and says that there was no chaos on the roads under private enterprise, and that everything in the garden was lovely,


I would quote the final report of the Royal Commission on Transport in 1931:
In the City of Liverpool alone there are 27 different clearing houses owning no vehicles at all and similar conditions obtain in most large towns.
The Report adds that they
obtain their trade by under-quoting the organised hauliers and railways, and then beating down the owner-driver to the cut-rate less the Clearing House commission.
That is private enterprise. That is one of the things probably which have made the operation of a nationally-controlled service in war-time more difficult than it might have been. The Royal Commission, in facing this problem of the co-ordination of our transport services, were met inevitably with the question of a central organisation under national ownership and control. It was discarded because it would have raised considerations of a political character, which prevented them from going into questions of this kind. But, when we come to a war, when the whole life of the community is at stake, political considerations should not stand in the way of necessary reorganisation. Unfortunately, that was the position, with the result that the transport system generally was not co-ordinated on a proper scale at the outbreak of hostilities.
I could cite other instances. I could refer to the condition of the canals. It would have been a tremendous advantage to the Government in dealing with wartime traffic, particularly the heavy, slow-moving, non-urgent traffic, which is peculiarly suitable for inland waterway haulage. The canals are in their present state for no other reason than the operation of private enterprise and the operation of groups of railway capitalists in trying to smash the competition of canals. That can all be substantiated by reference to the Report of the Royal Commission. In regard to docks the activities of the railway companies have not improved the siting of harbours and clocks around our coasts. I remember very vividly how, when I was working on the railway not so long ago, the company in which I was employed were very pleased about the good stroke of business they had done in buying up a dock on the North East coast. Their object was by means of preferential rates and charges to direct all the traffic coming into and going out of the country into this particular dock,

which brought them traffic and revenue, but this was to the detriment of all the other docks on the coast. I hope that, when giving consideration to the future of air transport, the Ministry will have that lesson in mind, and will not allow the railway companies, or any other groups of private interest, to buy up the airports for that purpose. It is obvious that the disposition and management of these facilities is a matter of national interest, and should not be left to private enterprise.
The Third Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure has been widely referred to. The lesson of that Report is that private interest and private profit are the only incentive that certain of the people at present running our transport facilities recognise. It is shown that even now, in war-time, there is no other spur to their initiative than the amount of profit they can make. Hon. Members who have already spoken about this Report have invited criticism of this kind. Reference has been made in this Debate, and in the Report, to the Railways Agreement. It has been suggested that the railway companies have not had a fair deal under that Agreement. That is one of the most colossal claims put forward by any industry during this war. Under the Agreement, the railway companies are guaranteed a profit of £43,000,000, although they were earning in 1935, 1936, and 1937 certainly not £4.0,000,000; their total revenue in 1938 was only £32,000,000. Why has the traffic gone up as it has? Simply because the Government have no time to discuss modifying charges, but they have to get the traffic which is vital to the war effort moving. The Government, therefore, are entitled to any surplus over a reasonable profit to the railway company. It is a principle well known to members of the co-operative movement that any surplus goes back to the consumer, but the railway companies are not satisfied. I read with some surprise in this Report that, in spite of that, the railway companies have no direct incentive to keep their operating costs down, because they are not working for profit. The Report says:
It is only reasonable to assume that those responsible for the day-to-day management of the railway undertakings will endeavour to run them as efficiently as is practicable under war conditions, in order that when full control is resumed one year after the end of the war,


the undertakings will be in the best shape to meet post-war competitive conditions
A similar charge is made in the Report in regard to unit controllers. The Report says:
Unit controllers have no financial incentive to see that lorries carry economic loads, since they are not acting for their firms but for the Ministry, and are not, therefore, interested to see that economy is observed on any particular journey.
That is because they are not working for their firms, but for the Government and the nation. Profit, again, is apparently the only incentive they recognise. The Report goes on:
It has also been suggested that since the Ministry of War Transport do not pay for depreciation of vehicles, unit controllers, in the interests of their firms give them"—
that is, their vehicles—
as little to do as possible.
That cannot be interpreted other than as a direct charge of sabotage, or 'blackmail. They are deliberately conserving their vehicles for after the war, irrespective of the needs of the nation. What is that other than sabotage? I am surprised that, when charges of that kind are made in this Report, the Committee do not recommend, at the end, that proceedings should be taken against these people, because we are told that these charges are based on specific evidence. One of the recommendations should have been that prosecutions be taken against the gentlemen responsible. It is not many days since we agreed that anybody who incited a man to strike during the war should be liable to five years' imprisonment and a £500 fine. This is the situation in the road haulage industry.

Mr. Hutchinson: The hon. Member has been putting this matter as though it was a charge which had been accepted by the Select Committee on National Expenditure. If he will look at page II, he will see that what the Committee are saying is that that is one of the charges which have been laid before them, against the unit controllers.

Mr. Montague: They accept it.

Mr. Hynd: I agree with the hon. and learned Member, but we were told that this was based on evidence. It has been suggested that the unit controllers are conserving the vehicles, in the interests of the firms after the war. The Report says:

This leads to far less freight being carried for the tonnage of vehicles on the road than would be the case if this were used to its full capacity.
That is a direct allegation, and not a suggestion. There are, I agree, suggestions which would take a considerable amount of substantiation, and which are in no way borne out by the language of the Report. I refer particularly to the charges against the drivers of the road haulage vehicles, in respect of which apparently there is no evidence, because the Report says:—
Drivers are said to be … no longer interested.
"Said to be" by whom? I have never heard it said before. If it is said by the operators or the unit controllers, surely what has been said of the unit controllers in this Report is sufficient to discount any evidence of that kind from them.

Mr. Hutchinson: The hon. Member ought to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that this particular criticism of the unit controllers appears in the Report of the Select Committee under a sub-paragraph entitled "Criticism from the Road Haulage Industry." It was one of the criticisms made to the Select Committee, with which they had to deal.

Mr. Hynd: I have no objection to that, but the whole purport of the Report is, surely, that the administration is inefficient. If I understand, from the interjection of the hon. and learned Member, that that is not the intention of the Committee and that they did not intend to convey what was in the Report as their conclusion, I think that the Minister, along with many other people, will be relieved to hear it.

Mr. Hutchinson: I am sure that the hon. Member wishes that this shall be put fairly to the Committee. These matters were put forward by the Select Committee as showing that there was great dissatisfaction with the scheme of control in the industry itself. The Committee then went on to deal with these charges, and, in their final recommendations, expressed the view that this was not an efficient organisation of control, not necessarily on the grounds which were put before them, but on grounds which the Committee themselves considered justified that recommendation.

Mr. Hynd: I am quite prepared to accept that, but the Minister will no doubt be gratified to hear that these criticisms are not necessarily endorsed by the Committee. That is certainly the impression I gathered, and which many other hon. Members gathered, from the discussion. I hope that, on this occasion, the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) is a little better briefed than he was on the last occasion, because I noticed that the road haulage organisations were rather upset by the fact that he was not so well briefed then. Now we have the assurance that these criticisms come from those interested in the industry itself, who are not content with the present state of affairs, because they are not working for their own firms, but for the nation. That is a re-assurance we certainly accept, but let me remind the Committee that, so far as the railway companies are concerned, the section of the report which deals with the g43,000,000 agreement is again very interesting in this respect, because it goes on to elaborate what has been done by the workers in very difficult conditions, and-shows the tremendous effort put forward by them in the difficulties of raids, the blackout, long hours and all the rest of it.
What are the conclusions? They are that, in spite of the immense growth of traffic, and the enormous increase in the work of the personnel, no corresponding financial advantage is accruing to railway managements, or to those who invested their savings in railway capital; that, in return for the work done under these difficult conditions by the workers, on night shifts in the blackout and in the shunting yards under bombs, the investor, unfortunately, has not had any proper reward. This is not a conclusion of the Committee, but a complaint from within the railway industry, and that we are quite able to understand.
I only want to underline one or two points raised in the Debate. In my opinion, they are very relevant to the fact that we have had this petty discussion on whether the unit controllers are getting enough from the Government and whether they are preserving their vehicles for after the war, and also on the interests of the railway shareholders. We have to remember that there is a war on, and this industry is playing one of the most vital parts

in the war effort. It is not good enough that these interests should have their eyes all the time on post-war profits. In order to maintain their own position they have been pin-pricking the Government, which is working, in very difficult circumstances, to operate this tremendous weapon in the national interests. If, as is suggested, other interests in the industry are undermining the position outlined in the report, I suggest that it is time for the Government to take action.

Mr. Montague: In reference to the interruption made by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson), may I be allowed to point out that the criticism of the road haulage system was directed against Government control? The whole essence of that criticism was that control should be taken out of the hands of the Government and placed in hands more closely associated with the industry. That is the point which the hon. and learned Member misses.

Mr. Bartle Bull: My excuse for taking part in this Debate is that I was for some two years Parliamentary Private Secretary to Captain Euan Wallace when he was Minister of Transport. The position of a Parliamentary Private Secretary is, perhaps, analogous to that of a batman in the Army, except that the batman gets more pay, and it is perhaps more analogous to temporary local, acting, unpaid rank in the Army, about which we have heard so much recently, in that there is a little added responsibility but no increase whatever in pay. During the two years when my chief was at the Ministry of Transport, all problems relating to transport were extremely well handled, although I appreciate that there had been difficulties in the period before that and that there were difficulties in the period following it. I will not follow the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) into a discussion about the relative merits of the private or public ownership of railways after the war, but I would remind him that, since we have had the London Passenger Board there have still been a certain number of complaints. Therefore it is not the case that, when a concern is owned by the State, whether a railway, the underground service or the bus service, that necessarily does away with all complaints.
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one or two questions. What


progress has been made in regard to changing the traffic in this country from the left to the right side of the road? In that connection, may I remind him that there is very little civilian traffic on the roads just now; that our troops have got into the habit of driving on the right side of the road in Egypt and in Libya, and that, when they go abroad, they have to drive on the right side with vehicles built for driving on the left. I suggested some time ago that this was an appropriate time to change, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he has made any progress in that direction. With regard to mileage, I realise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a little backward and probably wishes to keep up his old establishment and does not want to change. But could we not have the decimal system for speedometers on cars and trucks?
The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned difficulties experienced by conductresses of buses, and spoke of how hard-worked they were. I agree with him in what he said about their willingness to work in the pressure of traffic, and that they have to produce immediately the exact change, but has the Minister considered the suggestion I made some time ago about having return tickets? There are many stations on the Underground for which there are no return tickets available. I think it would save an enormous amount of time and trouble if we could have return tickets on the buses as well as on the Underground.
There is one other point, about first-class tickets for long distance journeys on the railways. I do not seek to be controversial on this point, but I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary and to hon. Members that either you have first-class tickets or you have not. If you sell first-class tickets, and the first-class compartments are filled with other people, I think that, in a way, it is taking money by false pretences. I am not advocating either the retention or the abolition of first-class tickets. I am only putting forward the suggestion that, if you have them—and Russia had them in 1935 when I was there and every Republic in the world where I have been has them—the rigorous rule for people without such tickets should be "You must not go in there." I am not discussing the merits of first-class

tickets; I only say "Let us have them or abolish them." There is another system, which operates in the United States, where they have Pullman cars with numbered seats, and the passenger "pays through the nose" to be put in there. That is another way of doing it, but the point is that you ought either to have the thing, or not have it. I suggest that it is a complete farce as it is operated at the present time.
The Parliamentary Secretary asked for any suggestions about plans for the future, and, without going completely into that question, I would like to ask him what plans, for example, are being made with regard to the electrification of the branch line from Liverpool Street to Enfield, and further, whether the Minister has considered reopening to passenger traffic that section of the Liverpool Street-Cheshunt Junction line between Lower Edmonton and Cheshunt Junction. These districts have developed enormously and the population has enormously increased so that the travel facilities are not what they should be. Finally, if any hon. Member has any post-war plans for the railways at all, I suggest he should have a look at the railway stations in various capital cities in the world. If we can find any station which is as dismal as Liverpool Street in any big city or capital in the world, let us discuss it again, but, in my short experience of the world, and I have been to most parts of it, I have never seen anything resembling it.

Mr. Shinwell): The hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Bull) will forgive me if I fail to follow up his interesting suggestion about driving on the right instead of on the left, but I beg of him to believe me when I say that my reluctance to enter into that controversy is not attributable to any adherence to any particular ideology. I hope that the tone of the suggestion is in no way associated with the apparent desire of many hon. Members, in relation to transport, to proceed further to the Right than we were actually in 1939.

Mr. Bull: Will the hon. Member allow me? My suggestion was not that, but to help the export trade, which I thought would be helped by the idea. It is not a case of going to the Right, but of helping the people on the. Left who make the cars and whose livelihood depends in many cases on our export trade.

Mr. Shinwell: As my hon. Friend is aware, any reference to the export trade, or to stimulating the export trade, makes a particular appeal to myself, but I can imagine many other devices that might be more rightly employed in order to assist in expanding this country's exports, but that is not the subject under review. We are all grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his admirable review of his Ministry's administration. The Department with which he is associated has come under the lash on several occasions since the beginning of hostilities. I have myself, as hon. Members are aware, frequently referred to the alleged blunders of his Department in the sphere of shipping, and I would not withdraw, at this time, one word of what I have uttered in that connection. But when my hon. Friend assures us—and we are deeply grateful for the assurance—that the past has been wiped out and that the organisation of our transport system is ready to bear the most excessive strain that can be imposed upon it by impending events, hon. Members would be ready, not only to accept that assurance with satisfaction, but to forgive the Minister for any mistakes that may have occurred during his administration. That is our primary purpose.
It appeared to me as I listened to the Debate—and off and on I have listened to almost every speaker—that the underlying feeling was whether we should stand by private enterprise or accept a large measure of public ownership in the sphere of transport. That theme does not appeal to me at all. Indeed, I regard it as irrelevant and I shall say why. It is clear that, whatever be the desire of hon. Members opposite and those with whom they are associated in transport outside, we can never return to the conditions of 1939. Whatever happens in the future, a large measure of transport co-ordination has come to stay. Even in the sphere of wagon organisation, to which the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Boyce) referred, a matter in which he has a very important interest—for a long time the claim has been advanced—I was myself associated with a department advancing the claim many years ago—that there should be more co-ordination in the use of railway wagons in this country. As in the case of railway wagons and of coordination among the several railway units, and of the constant amalgamations

that were taking place before the war, and which are in contemplation even now, among private road hauliers, it is clear that we cannot return to the primitive conditions of 1939. There has been a change. On the other hand, it is equally clear—and it must be clear to hon. Friends behind me as to others—that this Government have not the remotest intention of promoting anything in the nature of public ownership.

Mr. Gallacher: Reconstruction.

Mr. Shinwell: I have not the least doubt that my hon. Friend will be only too glad to associate himself with the project of the public ownership of transport.

Mr. Wakefield: By whom are the transport systems owned but by the members of the general public?

Mr. Burden: And the widows and orphans.

Mr. Shinwell: I would regard the observation of the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) as elementary. It requires, at the same time, amplification and this is not the occasion, but the hon. Member in a moment or two will see the direction in which I am driving. It is clear that, whether it is public ownership or not that emerges from the Department of my hon. Friend for the purpose of post-war transport, at any rate, proposals that are bound to emerge will be associated with a large measure of co-ordination. That cannot be debated now.
My hon. Friends opposite make a song and dance on the retention of controls, but who wants controls for the sake of controls? We do not want controls merely for the purpose of enabling people to sign forms or for other restrictive purposes. On the other hand, hon. Members will observe that controls become imperative in order to secure certain desirable objectives. Let us concern ourselves with the objectives. [An HON. MEMBER: "Come over here."] I have been doing my best for several months now to use arguments which I thought would have the effect of persuading hon. Members opposite to come over here. Whether they come over here or not is beside the point. In an ideological sense—I say this to them, and I know this country and the people of this country with whom I have associated myself as well as any


other hon. Member—80 per cent. of the people of this country, if they had to determine tomorrow the fate of the transport services of this country, would decide for public ownership. There is no doubt that this House has been influenced in the past by public clamour, and it will be again, for the post-war consideration of transport services. The question of co-ordination is something with which I am familiar. I have engaged actively in the examination of the problem, but I am concerned about immediate objectives and getting something done. Some of us are getting a little old, and I hope will be forgiven for that. It is all right for younger Members who have plenty of time with which to play. Some of us have been working for 20 or 30 years to get something done to effect desirable social changes in the country and we want to get something done. Therefore, we look for the most practical means of carrying out our suggestions.
I am going to make a suggestion to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary within the limits of the statement he made. He asked for suggestions. If I were asked what were the three primary objectives in relation to the railway system of the country I would say—and I hope that my hon. Friend will take note —that the first is to secure as rapidly as possible—I am not speaking of the war, because obviously this cannot be done during the war as there are difficulties—the complete electrification of our rail system.

Mr. Hutchinson: The main line system?

Mr. Shinwell: I realise that we have not the hydro-electric power that many other countries possess and that it would be an enormous cost. But we want it, and in the long run it would prove to be less costly. By electrification traffic can be speeded up. It becomes more comfortable. It is less of a nuisance.

Mr. Gallacher: It is healthier.

Mr. Shinwell: It is healthier, as my hon. Friend observes. Even if we cannot engage in the wholesale electrification of the system, at any rate we can electify the branch lines. Already must has been done in that direction by the Southern Railway, the L.M.S., and the London and North Eastern Railway in the North, and wherever it has been done it has met with

instantaneous success and approval on the part of the public. We want it for the purpose of speeding up our goods traffic and of removing those railway contraptions—I can think of no other word—that exist in some parts of Lancashire. It is almost impossible to get up any speed because of the accumulation of lines and the network of junctions and all the rest of it. They all seem to get in each other's way. The whole thing has to be disentangled. The railway system of this country has to be disentangled, and I believe that if we get down to the question of electrification we shall see the road out more clearly. I would like, naturally, to go the whole way and have the complete electrification of the railway system, but what is the main thing? It will cost a lot of money. Who is to pay it? Let us begin in this way. Are we agreed that there ought to be some measures taken to electrify the railway system, if we do not agree with wholesale electrification? If we do, who is to pay for it? Can the railway companies pay for it? The answer is "No, they have not the cash resources." Very well, the State must pay for it, and, if the State has to pay, the State must exercise the control, which even the financiers demand.

Colonel Greenwell: Is my hon. Friend quite sure that the State will have the financial resources after the war to do this having regard to all its other commitments?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): That would really be going much too far. We are already having a Debate which covers a very wide area.

Mr. Shinwell: In any event, Mr. Williams, I have no intention of being tempted by my hon. and gallant Friend. I am aware that we cannot discuss the financial implications.
I pass on and take the question of the condition of our railway stations. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield referred to 'Liverpool Street. That is only one example.

Mr. Bull: A very good one.

Mr. Shinwell: It is an awful example, but consider other main line stations in London. Take Waterloo and Victoria. The former is a little better, but most are horrible abortions. Take New Street, Birmingham-, Lime Street, Liverpool, and


other stations all over the place—dirty stations—and I am going to use the appropriate expression—some of them filthy stations, with inadequate resting accommodation. I have been in several of them and have had to wait several hours for a train occasionally, with many others. I cannot find an adequate expression to fit the case, and what I am about to say may not be on a very high or intellectual level. But it is time something was done by the railway companies, and, if not by the railway companies, by the State, to provide decent lavatory accommodation at the stations of this country. It is a disgusting business. But where is the money coming from? My hon. Friend opposite will find the answer.
The other suggestion I advance is the removal, as rapidly as possible, of perhaps the worst anachronism of the lot, that legacy from the Stephenson age—the level crossings throughout the country. Imagine, in 1944—and we are looking forward to 1947 and 1950—level crossings that are impeding traffic and wasting resources. We shall not be able to afford such waste of resources when this business is over. We shall have to use every ounce of our energy and every ounce of our material. These are three considerations and I say to hon. Friends in all parts of the Committee, I do not care how you do it as long as it is done. When my hon. Friend in his admirable speech referred to the nationalisation of railways, was it because he wants to make a fetish of it? Nothing of the sort. My hon. Friend might agree, on reflection, that if you can create a sound, efficient, healthy transport service, satisfactory to the users and to the employers, and satisfactory to the nation as a whole under the aegis of private enterprise, by all means let us do it. But you have not been able to do it.
We have to turn our minds in another direction, to something of equal importance. It is a remarkable fact that, although in this Committee we have been having a domestic controversy arising from the Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, a little by-play and cross talk, nothing has been said about the need for conserving the Mercantile Marine. What is to happen to the Mercantile Marine? Many mistakes have

been made in the handling of it during the war, but I have detected a vast improvement, and when there is improvement there is no need for further criticism. Let the past go. We have to look ahead. What are the facts? Before the war we had about 20,000,000 tons of shipping and the United States about 8,000,000 tons. The position is now completely reversed. Indeed, it is worse than that. We shall have at the end of the war, according to the best experts in the business, about 9,000,000 tons of shipping and some of it may be obsolete. As it happens, the Germans have not destroyed all our old ships and unfortunately they have destroyed some of our new ships. The United States will have about 16,000,000 to 18,000,000 tons of shipping. They call it 30,000,000 tons dead weight, but that is the comparable figure. What are we going to do?
The future of this country rests as much on the existence of an efficient Mercantile Marine as it does upon the existence of efficient coal mines, efficient steel works, efficient agriculture. We have to face up to that. What is being done by the Government about it? We cannot afford to wait too long. The war may end in the course of the next 12 or 18 months, or it may be sooner, but whenever the war comes to an end we shall have to face difficulties. We hear it said that for two years there will be such a boom and such a demand for goods that we shall be very busy. But who is going to carry those goods? Are we going to play into the hands of other maritime nations when we depend on our Mercantile Marine for our standard of living? I do not question the right of other nations to earn a living, but we must look after ourselves and see that we are in a strong position for the purpose of being able to bargain with other countries. People do not take notice of you unless you are strong. It is the primary purpose of those who sit on this side of the House to get the highest standard of living for our people. We shall never be happy until we get that.
I can do no more than offer a few suggestions. If anybody expects me to make a plea for the nationalisation for shipping at the end of the war they will be disappointed. Not even to satisfy ideologists on my own side am I going to do that. You can nationalise the railways and do much to co-ordinate rail and road


transport, but when it comes to shipping I want to see a scheme properly worked out and practicable before I attach my signature to it. There is, however, something that can be done. I exclude tramp shipping for the time being, but you could take over liner services and make them into a publicly-owned system through a public utility corporation, but not administered through my hon. Friend's Department who are the last people in the world who should be allowed to operate the shipping industry. I do not want anything in the nature of bureaucracy in the shipping industry or even the beneficial assistance of civil servants, admirable as they are in their own sphere. Nor should the large capitalists have it all their own way.
The people who have the right to administer industry, whether it be the shipping industry or any other industry, are the people who understand most about it. You can organise some part of the shipping service of the country on a national basis, and as far as possible you ought to do it, but it is no good talking yet about complete nationalisation. We have so to organise the Mercantile Marine as to secure conditions in regard to wages, manning and accommodation for officers and men that are the finest in the world. That is the least we can give them if we mean what we say when we pay glowing tributes to them in war time. It is no good paying tributes and saying what gallant fellows they are if when the end of the war comes they are thrown out of work. The men who during the war sported their ribbons and were really gallant fellows must not be left looking for jobs as vacuum cleaner salesmen and the like. We are not going to stand for that.
We have to be fair to these men and provide the best kind of shipping for the Mercantile Marine, and not accept a lot of old junk that the United States hand over to us. That is speaking pretty plainly. There may be 2,000 Liberty ships, and there is talk of those ships being handed over to other countries after the war. But if they are good ships, why should not the United States keep them instead of giving them to others? Why should they retain all ships of 14½ knots and onwards and dispose of the eight-knots or nine-knots ships, some of them built for nine-knots which can never do more than seven knots? Let us build

our own ships and build ships of individual class, not standardised ships. I do not believe in standardised ships. We must have different ships for different routes and allow a fair amount of free play for those concerned in ship design. We must have fast ships and we must have a large measure of co-ordination in shipping services.
When I read the reports of the Chamber of Shipping and a the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Society and other publications relating to shipping, I wonder if these people have ever learned anything. They seem to be living in the past, talking in terms of free unrestricted competition. We cannot go back to that sort of thing. In the future we shall have to compromise. There will not be complete Socialism. I doubt if we shall get that from this Government, and if a Labour Government came in we would not get complete Socialism. I hope that statement will satisfy people on the other side. But we have to get something in the nature of a compromise between a large measure of State direction and State ownership of essential indispensable industries and services and a certain measure of private ownership. That must be the line of progress for some years. It may not go as far as some people want, but I am trying to get something done and, therefore I make these proposals.
As far as shipping is concerned, we have to get fast ships and the best ships, and while we are ready to enter into arrangements with the United States or other maritime nations, the essential consideration when we are thinking of agreements of an international character is to see that the British Mercantile Marine is in a strong position. I am not prepared to advise revolutionary measures, because I want something practical achieved. If we can get for the workers in these services the very best conditions of labour the country can afford, and at the same time satisfy the consumers of the country, I think we shall have gone a long way in the direction of progress.

Lady Apsley: I desire to be associated with those hon. kelnhers who have paid their tribute to the Ministry of War Transport, and particularly to the transport workers who, from those in the highest positions down to the humblest seaman or docker, lorry driver or lorry driver's mate, have given of their


best and have done as much as any to make the winning of this war possible. For transport indeed is one of the most essential if not the most essential war service, as the whole essence of a successful war is to get the right things to the right place at the right time. The Minister has told us that he regards his job as one "to plan, to decide, to direct." Planning takes time, a great deal of time. Listening to his very excellent, interesting and instructive survey of the past year, I wondered whether he had given himself enough time to think of the future, that future which may be rather nearer and may come rather more unexpectedly than some of us think.
I should like, therefore, if the hon. Gentleman will permit me, to ask two or three questions on points in regard to which, it seems to me, there were some omissions. First, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he feels satisfied that he has been able to make suitable arrangements to carry on essential civilian transport, particularly by road and rail, when the second front is on us? Has he thought of possible alternatives? For instance, if the roads are blocked, has he considered dropping essential goods by parachute? We have aerodromes throughout the country, and this could be done in an emergency.
Secondly, has the Ministry of War Transport, in the plans which are undoubtedly being made for the future considered taking advantage of war-time research and war-time inventions? For instance, using new metal alloys in building the new road coaches and the new railway coaches that will be required immediately the war is over. How far up the priority list has he put new civilian buses? These buses, both in cities and and in country districts, are essential to our modern life, and it will be very hard on the civilian population if new and comfortable buses cannot be provided for workers in essential post-war industry as in essential war-time industry, both in town and country. Thirdly, I would refer to something which I think every man, woman and child in the country is considering in these days; that is their postwar holiday. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary is laying plans to make holiday travel possible. There is nothing like a holiday whether by sea, land or air, for

restoring health and morale and giving those people who have put their backs so well into the war effort some change and some return. I know that almost every worker in the country to-day is considering his or her post-war holiday.
The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) mentioned shipping. I would suggest that one of the best things which could be done would be to organise a type of post-war cheap holidays by British ships for the workers of this country after the war. There is much to see in the world and, after all, those people who have given so much to save world civilization should be enabled to see something of that world. I would suggest that cheap holiday trips to the Dominions, to Newfoundland, to the West Indies, to Canada, should be made well within the bounds of possibility almost as soon as the war is over. I hope the Ministry of War Transport will find itself ready, directly the war is over, to play its part in providing that better future which we have heard a good deal about to-day. I hope it will be ready for that happy day when we shall see written about our very shabby railway stations, "Your journey is necessary."

Mr. Wakefield: I want to draw attention to a part of the administration of the Ministry of War Transport which deals with export trade. Under the present administration there are certain restrictions in the construction and use of motor vehicles which adversely affect export trade, and I hope that the observations I have to make on that subject will be taken to heart by the Parliamentary Secretary. The hon. Member for Sea-ham (Mr. Shinwell) made certain points about the export trade which have some bearing on the observations I am going to make. As I understand it, the hon. Member asked the Parliamentary Secretary if, in the plans he is making, it is intended to electrify the railways, and that if the railway companies could not pay for the necessary electrification, then the State should do it. The money has to come from somewhere, however, and if the railways cannot do it, it means that other industries must pay, whether by higher charges for goods or in some other way, and that in the end falls back on the export trade.
If we are to export to advantage we have to be in competition with the rest


of the world, and it seemed to me that the hon. Member did not want to nationalise shipping. Why? Because he knows perfectly well that our shipping is in competition with other shipping lines in other parts of the world and, where you are in competition, a State monopoly can never win through. As I understand it, therefore, the hon. Gentleman suggests that the railways should be nationalised because they are a sheltered industry at home, without competition with the outside world, but that shipping should be carried on by private enterprise, because private enterprise is more efficient and able to compete with the outside world.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member is quite wrong and has misunderstood me. In the case of the railways it must, not be argued that if you nationalise them it means increased costs for our export trade. The hon. Member has no reason to believe that at all, and I would like to know why he says it.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): I am very sorry, but there is rather a tendency of those taking part in this Debate on Estimates to think that it is a Debate on nationalisation.

Mr. Wakefield: I think this question was raised because of the planning now being carried out in the Department. I understood it would be in Order to discuss administration and planning which, after all, are part of the administration of the Department. It seemed to me that if the Ministry was planning to nationalise all railways, that, in turn, would mean an increase in charges, and as you cannot export goods without transporting them from the place of manufacture to the port of export, that means a higher charge. on the goods you are exporting, as a result of which we shall not be able to compete with other countries.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Why should it?

Mr. Wakefield: There is any amount of evidence of the higher cost of running railways in different parts of the world, where they are run by the State, as compared with private enterprise. It would be out of Order for me to give facts to support this, in regard to Canada, Australia and elsewhere.

Mr. Shinwell: But does not that confirm the hon. Member's argument that

you must cheapen your exports in order to compete with other countries? Are riot other countries going to compete with us, which have State railways?

Mr. Wakefield: I think the hon. Member will find that those countries which have State railway systems are not quite so competitive.

The Deputy-Chairman: I really would suggest that it might be as well to get away from nationalisation. It may be that the Minister has made plans, but some will need legislation and it would be very much out of Order to discuss those. I really think hon. Members should keep to present-day facts rather than future theories.

Mr. Wakefield: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Williams, and go back to the point which I wished originally to make. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could give me his attention for a moment, because this is a very important matter. Under the administration of his Department, motor passenger vehicles are not allowed more than seven feet six inches in width. That may be all right for the home market, but it is a severe handicap for the export market, where vehicles are eight feet and over in width. Clearly, it would be a great advantage if that restriction could be removed and if motor passenger vehicles could be allowed to be built of the same size for the export trade, as well as for the home trade. It is obvious that such vehicles would be more able to compete with foreign corn-petition in the export markets if this assistance could be given to the manufacturers. I know that there are objections, chiefly that the roads of this country are too narrow, but I would like to point out that at the beginning of this war certain vehicles which had been built for export, and which were eight feet wide, were retained in this country and are now running on our roads without any disadvantage. Also, many of our secondary roads have been widened for military requirements during recent years and if there are still some roads that are not wide enough I suggest that every effort should be made to widen them as soon as possible so that as and when these passenger vehicles come on them they will be wide enough to receive them. By having a wider interior in these passenger vehicles it would make for the convenience of


passengers and would make the arduous task of conductors and conductresses very much easier. So, when the Ministry are making their plans I hope they will consider this point so that the export trade, about which everyone has been speaking in recent Debates as being of the greatest importance, may be benefited.
There is one other point I want briefly to mention. What plans are being made by the Ministry for trunk roads? Equipment which is now becoming available, and which is now no longer needed for aerodromes and the like, could I suggest be put quickly on to the making of new trunk roads in the centre of England and on our coasts. The County Boroughs Association have produced plans, with which I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is familiar, which show that instead of tinkering with the old trunk routes the Ministry ought to build new roads bypassing villages and towns, in the same way that thousands of miles of aerodrome runways have been built during the war. Such new roads would take a large volume of traffic, and would make it easier for the existing roads to be repaired and improved.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that we should construct new motor-ways?

Mr. Wakefield: Yes, I meant the construction of entirely new motor-ways, on which a scheme has been prepared. By building these new motor-ways it will enable traffic to be taken off existing roads and would make it easier to improve the present system of roads, wherever it was practicable.

Mr. Lewis: I want to draw the attention of the Committee to a matter which has been discussed before but which has certain peculiar features to which the attention of Members should be drawn. The Minister is constantly reminding us that stocks of petrol in this country must be carefully conserved. We all know that the allocation of petrol for necessary and important purposes is constantly being curtailed, and in some instances cut off altogether. We also know that such petrol comes to this country always at the risk, and sometimes at the cost, of the lives of the sailors whose job it is to bring it. It is against that background that I want the Committee to con-

sider the case which I wish to present. The Ministry of War Transport have certain responsibilities for petrol rationing and in the exercise of those responsibilities they allocate petrol to dog-racing establishments for the purpose of carrying the dogs from their kennels to the courses, often a very considerable distance. Normally, I believe there are two double journeys a week, one for trials and the other for racing.
I have been endeavouring to ascertain what this means in terms of the weekly consumption of petrol. The Parliamentary Secretary said, in answer to a Question in the House the other day, that in London alone there is a weekly consumption, for this purpose, of 164 gallons. That has been going on for years, I understand. When, a little later, I tried to ascertain from him what this meant for the country as a whole, I was surprised to receive the answer that the Ministry did not know and did not propose to find out. But there was a greater surprise than that in store for me. I particularly wished to be able to lay before the Committee the gallonage which was originally granted to these dog-racing establishments when petrol rationing first started, and the gallonage which is being granted to them to-day, so that the Committee could see what efforts the Ministry have made to reduce this consumption of petrol. When I asked for those figures I was told they could not be supplied because the necessary records had all been deliberately destroyed.
The Ministry has been granted very dictatorial powers in this matter of petrol, and apparently they think that, because they are given those powers to-day, never at any future time can the House inquire into the use they have made of them. It is an alarming suggestion that, when wartime powers of this kind have been given to Ministers not merely to be used, as they must be now, in an arbitrary way, and the records as to how they have been used have been destroyed, it means that the House can never ask for an account of the stewardship entrusted to Ministers. This is not the time to discuss the merits of dog racing as an institution, but I doubt if there is a Member in the Committee who would give it as his opinion that, if all facilities for betting were removed, dog-racing would continue anywhere in the country on the same scale as at present.

Mr. Walter Edwards: Does the hon. Member want the same done to horse racing as he is proposing for dog racing?

The Deputy-Chairman: It would be completely out of Order to propose abolishing any of them.

Mr. Lewis: These are simply establishments for the purposes of betting. The Parliamentary Secretary takes the view that, the Government having decided that these racecourses are to continue during the war, it is his duty to provide them with petrol. But surely they should have a very low priority compared with other services and occupations, and we are entitled to ask the Ministry to use every effort to ensure that as little petrol as possible is consumed in this way. We have no evidence that they do anything of the kind.

Mr. Guy: I have heard the hon. Member complain of this before, but I have not heard him complain of taxi-cabs careering about in the West End of London for nothing at all.

Mr. Lewis: That is another point. This power was acquired in order that dogs might be conveyed from the kennel to the track. In the case of a number of courses this has been rendered entirely unnecessary because the dogs are kept on the spot and, if the Ministry had exercised any kind of pressure, that practice could have been followed at other tracks and the need for petrol done away with. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give an assurance that the Ministry will look into this seriously and see whether the consumption of petrol for this purpose cannot be curtailed during the war. I also ask him to look into the important question which has arisen out of it, of the destruction of records. We do not want to be told, when inquiry is made about the exercise by Ministers of their war-time powers, that no information can be given because the necssary records have been deliberately destroyed.

Mr. Burden: This has been a Debate of more than ordinary interest and I should have liked to be able to deal in detail with some of the speeches, particularly that of the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall). In listening to his speech, my sympathies with the Parliamentary Secretary grew and grew

because, if it really represents the point of the view of the road transport industry, there is very little hope for that industry. He attacked the war-time organisation of the Ministry and used it as a plea for a return to pre-war competitive practices. He argued for a limitation of C licences and then coolly went on to ask for increased expenditure, national and local, in regard to roads used by road transport. Then he referred to subsidisation of the railways, and, ultimately, to the decay of the railway system, grass growing on the permanent way and so on.
As to subsidies, the railways under Government control are paying a very handsome profit to the State and, if the study that the Ministry is giving to postwar conditions is along the lines how best to return the different forms of transport to private ownership, I hope there will be freedom all round and that all restrictions will be removed, particularly from the railway companies, and, for example, that they will be able to quote whatever rates they think fit. I say, as one who has had experience for 40 years as an employee of a railway company, that, going all out, the railways could within 30 years reduce competitive road transport and make it as dead as the dodo. What would happen if, as far as the four main lines running out from London are concerned, two were devoted, to rail transport and the other two converted into fast motor-ways, one for up, and the other for down, motor traffic? I wonder what the hon. Member would think if the railway interests asked the State to undertake not only the cost of maintaining the permanent way of the railways, in the same way that roads are maintained, but also the cost of construction of the permanent way in the same way that the State and local authorities have paid for the roads.
I will get back to my main argument. I do not want to come under your displeasure, Mr. Williams, and I hope that I have been able to keep well within the bounds of Order. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us eloquently of the magnificent achievements of road, rail and sea, in connection with the war effort and he has paid a tribute to those engaged in those services. On behalf of the railway workers, I can say that they will appreciate the tribute that has been paid to them; but is it cynical to recall that similar eloquent tributes were paid


to the railway workers in the period 1914–18 and that, because there was not adequate study and preparation for postwar conditions, in a little over 12 months the men who had been praised for their patriotism so often were being denounced as anarchists? The attempt of the railway worker to secure something better than a definitive offer of a minimum of 40s. per week was then regarded as an anarchist conspiracy. One does not want that sort of thing to happen at the close of this war.
May I also ask the Parliamentary Secretary what is happening in connection with the Railway Rebates Fund during the period of Government control? The Committee will be aware that the Railway Rebates Fund was set up by the Local Government Act, 1929, under which the railway companies were relieved of 75 per cent, of their payments of rates to local authorities. Different from industry generally, instead of the railways being allowed to retain that money, a fund was set up into which those moneys were paid. That fund is used to reduce the charges on the carriage of certain commodities. From 1930 to 1936, the annual subsidy to the coalmining industry in the shape of reduced charges, varied from £2,400,000 to £3,300,000. The figure for the agricultural industry over the same period varied from £700,000 to £865,000 a year. It is true that a legal decision in 1936 considerably reduced the amount of local rates payable, but in 1938, the latest year for which I could obtain figures, the amount paid in respect of coal was £1,300,000 and of agriculture somewhere about £300,000. I am very interested to know what is happening at the present time, so far as those payments are concerned.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Minister might be able to answer so far as the railways are concerned, but he must not answer with regard to agricultural or coalmine rates.

Mr. Burden: With due respect I would point out that those payments were rebates given by the railway industry to those other branches of industry. The payments flowed outwards from the Railway Rebates Fund to coalmining and agriculture, in the shape of reduced charges. That was the method.

The Deputy-Chairman: I understood the hon. Member to be referring to the whole of the rebates of rates to agriculture and coalmining, but so far as the rebates to which he referred came out of the Railway Rebates Fund, it would be strictly in Order to mention them.

Mr. Burden: Thank you very much, Mr. Williams. I have been trying very hard to keep within the bounds of Order. I appreciate the difficulties of the Ministry in handling many of the complex matters and conflicting interests. It is realised that it is extremely difficult to distribute traffic on anything like an ideal basis. Those difficulties were emphasised in the final report of the Royal Commission on Transport, which said:
Who is to decide what rail services are desirable in the public interest and what amount of coast-wise shipping. Or what goods in the national interest should be sent by railway, road, canal, or ship? To propound the question is sufficient to bring home the immense difficulty it involves.
That is the job of the Ministry of War Transport under war-time conditions and on the whole it is tackling it very well indeed. The Royal Commission pointed out that 80 per cent. of goods vehicles are owned by private traders and manufacturers, for their own collection and deliveries of traffic. One appreciates that the Ministry have not had a very easy job to co-ordinate those varied interests, in order that the national needs might be served.
The Minister has indicated that he and his Noble Friend are studying post-war problems. I would urge them to take advantage of the present position to seek out and work for definite plans for the future, in regard to all forms of transport, and to let the House know of and debate those plans. I hope that those studies will not take too long. We were informed in October last that they were being actively pursued, and I hope that we shall be able to hear something concrete very soon, from the Minister. I appreciate the difficulties that are involved. I would like to call the attention of the Minister to a very short extract from some evidence given by the Transport and General Workers Union to the Royal Commission on Transport as to how the public suffer from the effects of competition in road transport services. Of course, they are not suffering now, in the absence of road competition and in the present conditions


of co-ordination. The evidence said that under competitive conditions the public got a less efficient service, and it went on to say:
2. There is considerable waste and inadequate service, due to competitive undertakings seeking to ply for hire on thickly populated routes while the routes in sparsely populated areas are ill-served.
(3) Ill-equipped vehicles are put into service and … (4) there is an incentive to speeding and cutting-in by drivers that increases the danger to road users.
5. In many instances employees work long hours with abnormal spreadovers. They have insufficient rest periods and are in receipt of low wages.
I agree that the Road Traffic Acts have improved the position since that evidence was submitted, but my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) referred to the tragic story of road accident figures published to-day. While we are not prepared to' blame the drivers—we know the difficulty of the black-out and so on—I say deliberately, that if the same number of accidents occurred on the railways this House and the country would be seething with indignation. But they happen day by day on the roads and nothing is done about them.
There can be no question that the activities of operators in the road transport goods industry requires rationalisation—I have not used the word "nationalisation," but rationalisation. In view of the very large number of such operators who are now associated with the Ministry and others not associated with the Ministry, and the foundations from which the industry has grown up, the step will not be a simple matter when compared with the rationalisation which very largely exists at the present time on the passenger side. I put it to the Minister that there is very little hope indeed of any rationalisation, unless this is assisted at the present time by the good offices of the Minister of War Transport. It is very necessary, and that is why I regretted the speech of the hon. Member for Hulme, that the industry should have full confidence in the Ministry, and equally essential that the Ministry should have full confidence in the road transport industry itself.

Sir J. Nall: Does the hon. Member want to see all the small men thrown out of business?

Mr. Burden: Not at all, but the trouble of the industry at the moment is that the

small men are struggling against the bigger men, and so on and so on. If I had the time I could retail from my experience on the railway, the methods which are adopted by traders to apply Gresham's law so far as road transport is concerned. I will give one instance of that. A certain firm adopted the practice of telephoning to me to find out the rate between two particular points for a certain quantity of traffic, either the standard or exceptional rate. Having obtained that rate, the firm immediately got into contact with one road transport firm and said "The railway rate is 20s. What will you do it for?" They may have got the answer, "Nineteen shillings" and they went on from firm to firm until that figure would be brought down to something like 14s. or 12s. 6d. In the interests of the road operators themselves, I suggest there should be some rationalisation, some rate structure to prevent the bad people from driving out the good. I will go further and say that the rates at which this traffic was ultimately carried were such that the traffic could not be carried at those rates unless some of the conditions of the Road Traffic Acts were evaded by the firms concerned. Unfortunately, that happened in some instances, with the connivance of the driver. I would urge the Ministry of War Transport not to neglect the present opportunities. At the road and rail conference, to which the hon. Member for Hulme did not seem to attach any importance, the chairman of both the road and rail sections are urging that things cannot be left as they were in 1939. The whole trouble of the road industry is that the people inside cannot make up their minds as to what they want.

Sir J. Nall: I am sure the hon. Member does not want to misrepresent me. He has himself said that 80 per cent. of the road vehicles belong to private owners. Is it not the case that so long as 80 per cent. are privately owned, any rate structure applying to only 20 per cent. will be quite ineffective?

Mr. Burden: I have already dealt with that point. I am perfectly well aware that 80 per cent. of the road vehicles are owned by C licence holders, but if the hon. Member will do me the honour of looking at my remarks in HANSARD, he will see that I have covered most of the points he makes. I would urge the Min-


ister to take advantage of the present situation. If he allows the present opportunities to pass, then I can see that we shall be in for the same sort of thing as happened after the last war. Is there any "dead hand" influence at work, or are there any powerful influences, in the Ministry of War Transport, which have made up their minds that these various forms of transport are to go back to private ownership after the war? If that is the position, then tell us. Let the country know so that they can prepare for it. On the railway side, I would say, if that is the plan, then wipe out the agreement and let the shareholders have up to the standard revenue of £51,000,000 and leave the balance of what is being earned by the railways to be ploughed back into the railways after the war. Let us know what is to be done with regard to the future of the transport industry, which is vital to the future of the country and its prosperity. While I am grateful for everything that the Minister has said, I beg him not to keep the Committee ignorant of what is going on, and to let us have a full-dress Debate at the earliest possible moment on the future of the industry.

Captain Gammans: I propose to try to restrain myself from using this occasion to air my political views in regard to the virtues of private enterprise versus State control. We listened to-day to a very remarkable account of the achievements of British transport during the war, an account which takes us back into the dark days of the blitz, of men driving trains and lorries through falling bombs with great gallantry and, also, if I may say so, of great resilience and initiative within the transport industry of this country. I believe that when we can read the full story of what has been done by British transport under war conditions it will be one of the proudest pages of the war, whatever political deductions we all draw from that. There will be a wide range that can be drawn of the virtues of private enterprise, or in the opposite direction, if one wishes.
The Parliamentary Secretary paid tribute to-day to many people in the transport industry, the drivers of our trains and our lorries, the men who work in the marshalling yards, seamen and so on. He also paid tribute to our Allied

seamen. There was one omission, and I wonder that he did not refer to the Indian seamen in the Merchant Navy. If my information is right 20 per cent. of the men in the British Merchant Navy to-day come from India, and, without them, I do not know how we could have carried on. We often hear of the India which talks and does not fight: here is a chance to pay tribute to the India which fights and does not talk.
The hon. Gentleman might have paid some tribute also to those 70,000 hauliers about whom we heard so much to-day. These men, who set themselves up in business by their thrift, initiative and hard work, have seen their businesses disappear. They have given up their lorries and have gone into the pool, and they are wondering what is to happen to them after the war. Some tribute might have been paid to the grace with which they did it. I do not want to speak about the hauliers' pool to any extent. I have no technical knowledge about it, and I was not a member of the Select Committee which investigated it, but I do not think that the rosy picture which the Parliamentary Secretary painted today about the success of that scheme is altogether true. To put it mildly,' one hears of many cases of inefficiency, of a woeful waste of transport, and of not too comfortable conditions for the men who drive the lorries. I hope that my hon. Friend will be prepared at least to consider grievances which Members of Parliament have to raise from time to time.
I hope that he can give some assurance about the future. I need not remind hon. Members that this Government have no mandate to nationalise the transport industry. My hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) has talked about returning the lorries to their owners. This Government have no authority to do anything else. They took the lorries away because of the emergency, and they must give them back, unless they secure authority from this House to do otherwise. My hon. Friend would do much to reassure the 70,000 little people in the haulage business if he would make it plain to-day that, as soon as the emergency is over, these lorries will be returned. My hon. Friend spoke about the post-war plans and the committees which he had set up to investigate various aspects of post-war


transport. There are two small points to which I hope consideration is being given. Both may seem rather small to bring up in the middle of a war, but if they are not considered whew plans are being made, they may be lost sight of. The first is what I might call the aesthetic side of the new road programme. I hope the Minister will seek the necessary powers to prevent advertisements being stuck along the main roads.

Sir Herbert Williams: Will my hon. and gallant Friend give an undertaking that he will not put his own picture up in Hornsey at the next Election?

Captain Gammans: I was talking about the main roads. I think my hon. Friend would secure the assent of the vast majority of the people of this country if he sought such powers. I made a suggestion of this kind some time ago, and I received most abusive letters from advertising people, who said that I was trying to prevent advertising. The answer is nonsense. If they want to know whether I was trying to stop this particular sort of advertising the answer is, "Yes." We can very well do without that.

Mr. Burden: Is the hon. and gallant Member not aware of the very great virtues of Beecham's pills and of Dr. Williams' pink pills for pale people?

Captain Gammans: Yes, but I do not want to be reminded of them as I go along the countryside. The other question relates to signposts. All our signposts had been taken down, and I see that many have now been stuck up again. I believe that we can improve the signposting of our main roads. Most of the signposts date from the days of horses and traps, when one drove along at six miles an hour, stuck up high, and had plenty of time to read signposts. We want signposts suitable for people driving motor cars. I believe that far more accidents than most people realise are caused by the main roads not being properly sign-posted. I apologise for bringing up these two small points, but I hope that they are being considered.
I would like to endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) about the road system. I listened to my hon. Friend

the Parliamentary Secretary when he spoke in January and again to-day, and I confess that I was disappointed that he did not say more about his ideas for a modern road system. He showed a certain timidity, and, instead of going the whole hog, his mind seemed to be rather working on the lines of improving the present road system. To do that would be just wasting our money, and not giving the country what it needs. We are told that a man is as old as his arteries. The industry of a country is as efficient as its arteries, and if we are to compete in the markets of the world, we must have an efficient road system. I do not believe that we had it before the war. When I was in Korea, I bought myself one of those beautiful brass-bound Korean desks. I had it packed and shipped and sent home. It cost me more to get it home from the West India Dock to my home in Hampshire, than to get it transported from the middle of Korea, packed in a crate, and shipped to this country. We cannot afford that sort of thing. Our roads to-day contain seven times the density of vehicles that the roads of the United States carry. We have the most congested road system in the world. Unless we think big with regard to post-war roads, we shall not provide this country with the road system that we require to hold our own in the great markets of the world. I apologise for bringing forward these post-war points at a time when, I imagine, my hon. Friend's thoughts must be very much on the great task which lies immediately before him, but he has given us some indication that, in spite of the anxieties which he and those connected with him in dealing with the roads and the railways must be feeling, about what is to happen in the next few weeks, there is still time to give some thought to the great problems which will face his administration when the war is over.

Mr. Walter Edwards: Unlike some Members who have spoken to-day, I do not propose to take up a long time and thus prevent other Members saying a few words on this most important topic. The Parliamentary Secretary presented what I consider to be a very fine report of a good year's work. Since I was elected to this House, I have watched with great interest the work of the Ministry of War Transport. I used to work in the docks industry, I have


been closely associated with the shipping industry, and I have been greatly concerned with the Merchant Navy. It has grieved me recently to find that certain Members of this Committee never seem to think that the Ministry of War Transport are doing anything right. They are always finding fault. I want to point out to those hon. Members that there is still a war on, and that immense difficulties still exist, particularly with regard to transport in this country, and that, whoever was in control at the Ministry of War Transport, would meet difficulties in connection with running it.
I happen to be associated with the Transport and General Workers' Union, which has a greater membership in the road transport and docks industries than any other union in this country. The Transport Workers' Union has asked that I should comment on the Third Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, in which the Committee state that they accepted the reports in connection with the efforts of the workpeople, without having consulted them. I think the matter was referred to once before to-day, when comment was made on the statement that drivers of vehicles are said to be losing heart and are no longer interested in saving time on their trips. The Transport Workers' Union very strongly repudiate that suggestion. They, like all the other trade unions in this country, realise that difficulties must arise occasionally, and the reason why such a position may have come about in the road transport industry, is because of the Government's policy. Goods had to be put on the railways and the road transport industry had to be reserved for some probably more important job in the near future. That has turned out to be true. The road transport industry is to be given a great amount of tonnage which has to be Moved about the country, and which is very badly needed, and it was a wise policy on the part of the Ministry of War Transport, on that occasion, to keep all these vehicles ready for the time when they will he required. The hon. Lady the Member for Central Bristol (Lady Apsley) was concerned about the conveyances we were going to have, when the second front opened. One thing is certain—that we cannot have more than we have already got in the country. What we have to

be assured of is that every means of transport in the country is going to be efficiently used.
I do not want to labour the point raised by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) and other hon. Members with regard to the post-war period and the control of transport. But I was very pleased indeed to hear the Minister, more than once to-day, in connection with the dockers, refer to the new system which exists in the docks and shipping industry. I want to refer to the many difficulties which older men employed in the docks have to endure at present. They must not be generally known to hon. Members. Dock workers are being shunted about, I do not say unnecessarily, but in such a way as, in some cases, to produce grievances. They are being moved from place to place in the country in a much worse way than most employees of other industries. In the main, they have stuck it very well, but they would like those responsible for the transfer to make certain, at all times, that the transfer is absolutely necessary before making these men waste time in travelling backwards and forwards to various places.
With regard to the Merchant Navy shipping pool, this is another godsend which was years overdue. But may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether these present godsends will still be godsends if, after the war in which our people are to-day sacrificing their lives, it is said, so far as the Merchant Navy is concerned, "You paid them £3 6s. per week when they were in danger of being sunk every five minutes, but, when it is over and they have no ships, they can starve, just as they did before"? These men are justly entitled to know from the Ministry, some time in advance of the end of hostilities, what is to be their fate. If their fate is to be similar to what it was before, if they are to go back to the old state of the shipping industry, then all that they are doing now is not worth while.
There is another matter regarding the shipping industry to which I would refer. I do not speak for the Seamen's Union, but I think I can say that the National Union of Seamen have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend and for the Minister himself and for the way they have tried to help the workers in that industry since it has come under their control. What is more, I am certain that the Parliamentary


Secretary retains the respect of the vast majority of the men in the Merchant Navy, but he retains it to-day because of the improvements he has brought in. But if these rights—not concessions—to which these men have been entitled for years, are taken away, that respect will go. On the subject of de-casualisation, until this war started, there were men with half a day's work a week, who were on unemployed pay nearly all the time. How strange it is that, when we find ourselves in times of difficulty, and when it is necessary to have public control in order to make certain that there is no wastage, or less wastage, we do not put up with the old method, under which men had days without any pay at all. My hon. Friend referred to the average age of dockers, which, I think he said, is 58, and he mentioned a man in Liverpool who is over 70 and working very hard indeed. What these men are getting under this de-casualisation scheme—and the same applies in the Merchant Navy—is something they should have had years ago, and they say that, in consideration of the great sacrifices they have made in this war, they are entitled to be given some idea, in the very near future, of what the policy of the Government will be with regard to de-casualisation in the post-war period.
I conclude by saying that, personally, I think my hon. Friend has carried out his administration very well. I am certain that he retains the confidence of the vast majority of the trade unions which cover the transport industry, but I ask him to bear in mind these very important post-war points which I have raised, and let us know in the very near future what action is contemplated.

Captain Strickland: This is the second opportunity within a very few weeks on which we have had a chance to debate the principles on whic1) our transport industry is run, particularly with regard to road transport, and I feel that, in view of the Parliamentary Secretary's statement, showing how long it was since we had a Debate on road transport previously, we are well justified in discussing the matter again to-day. In fact, I say that so importaint a subject should receive more attention. I believe the position is very serious. Some of my hon. Friends and I have tried to bring forward points with regard to inefficient working of the

road transport scheme. They have tried to point out that this clamping hand of officialdom has come down on the road transport industry and prevented a great public service from doing the work for the public which it could so well take in hand. I had occasion a short time ago to draw attention by means of a Prayer to a certain Statutory Rule and Order which gave even greater power to the Minister. Since that time there has been issued another Statutory Rule and Order with regard to our canals. It is No. 407 (1944). I will read Article 28 as an instance of the danger to which I think the attention of the Committee should be drawn. It says, with regard to the period of control:
The control of the undertaking shall be continued for a minimum period of one year after the cessation of hostilities.
I do not know what is meant by the cessation of hostilities, but this can run on for a very considerable period. The Article 'goes on to say:
Any extension of the minimum period will be decided by the Minister.
There is the crux of the position which has arisen in this country in which we are being governed by Statutory Rules and Orders, which give into the hands of certain Ministers vast powers and cut out entirely the Parliamentary control which ought to be exercised in any of these undertakings. The Minister, under this Order, has the power to extend the control of canals beyond the period of 12 months at his own discretion, and not at the discretion of Parliament. These controls will be liable to no sort of time limit imposed on them by the cessation of hostilities. It is very important that attention should be drawn to this matter.
The less the State interferes with industry the better, and we have had an example in road administration of the inefficient working of the State in a great industry. I have, from time to time, brought forward instances of inefficiency and, no doubt, the bringing forward of a particular example may easily have led hon. Members to think that they were just isolated cases; that in a glorious, well-worked scheme, just one or two things had gone wrong and the hon. Member for Coventry was wasting the time of the House by drawing attention to these things. I have had so many instances brought to my notice from all over the country that I could not possibly ignore


them. The only way in which I could draw the attention of the House to these cases was to take the single instances. I was surprised at the general handling of the answers. A short time ago I put down two Questions in order to give two instances. The Minister replied that, with my permission, he would answer the two Questions together, and that as the answer was a long one he would circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. If one cares to look up HANSARD the length of the answer given to these two Questions by lumping them together will be seen. I suggest that these Questions might well have been answered in the House subjected to supplementary questions, according to the privileges of Private Members.
When we presented a Prayer recently a very bitter attack was made by the Parliamentary Secretary on the Standing Joint Committee. About three-fifths of his speech in reply was devoted to that and not to a justification of the administration of his Department. We have also had the advantage of the researches made into the working of his Department in the Report of the Select Committee. That gave some very definite cases, which were thinly skated over, and which have certainly not been answered by the Minister. The Committee is entitled to know how far the Select Committee was right in the conclusions at which it arrived. I have taken very great care from time to time to see that the Questions I put in this House were based on facts.
I have in my hands one of the lists of the Ministry of War Transport road haulage organisations. It is the actual sheet on which payments are made by the Ministry, and which is accepted and checked by the Ministry. This affects a six-ton vehicle. It gives, day to day, the actual load the vehicle took, where it went, the time it occupied and the driver's name. In this particular case it is for the week ending 24th March, and shows miles run, 808, of which 419 were empty running. It gives the calculation of the loads that were carried, and they consisted of three loads of potatoes. They were six-ton loads and the total carried by that vehicle during that week amounted to 18 tons of potatoes. I have had the advantage of checking the actual payment made by the Government Department for

this work. I will give it as I want to emphasise the point that the cases I have brought have not been trumped up, but are genuine cases which have come to my notice. For that work, that week, the amount paid by the Department, was, for wages, £9 16s. 8d., petrol (83 gallons) £10 5s. 0d., 808 miles at 2.69 pence, £9 1s. 2d., hire of vehicle £7 0s. 3d. and on top of that is the weekly proportion of the tax and insurance which comes to £4 10s. 0d. After certain deductions there is a total of £38 18s. 6d., and if one divides that by the 18 tons carried, the cost per ton of carrying those potatoes comes out at about £2 3s. 6d. per ton. When I bring the question forward to the Minister he says, "We carry them at exactly the same rates as they are carried by private enterprise." I would ask the Minister this question. How does he work out that these potatoes were carried at 18s. 6d. per ton in view of the figures I have given to the Committee, checked by his Ministry, paid for, and accepted as being the facts of the case?
I was very disappointed that in the course of his speech, and indeed in the Debate, too little tribute has been paid to the divisional area and unit controllers who act under the Ministry. I am rather afraid that in the course of the Debate on the Prayer we rather omitted to accept the fact that the overriding hand of the Ministry dictates to these people what they have to do, and consequently it is not their fault if things go wrong. These divisional, area and unit controllers, together with a body of men who we cannot praise too highly, the drivers, have done a grand job of work for the country during this period of time.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Was not the hon. and gallant Member attacking these same fellows as hard as he could the other day?

Captain Strickland: These men are acting on instructions from the permanent civil servants, who in turn have to act under the instructions of the Minister. The responsibility comes back to the Minister for the mal-administration of road transport. That is the sort of thing of which we ought to get rid.
I feel the time has come when we ought to ask the Minister to produce his plans for post-war roads. The Parliamentary Secretary speaking at Bournemouth


pointed out, I think two years ago, the need for this plan, and the Minister himself said he had got definite plans which he had placed before his colleagues in the Cabinet. We are still without any indication whatever of what is to be done. The Parliamentary Secretary says that in the post-war period we shall have the number of motor cars quadrupled, and we cannot put a quart into a pint pot. I am sorry I cannot develop the subject to-day, but I hope the Minister will be prepared to say to-day, "We have this plan, we have submitted it to the Cabinet." The county surveyors' scheme has been in the hands of the Ministry since 1938 and still it is not accepted by the Government. That scheme has received the approval of every county through which these motor roads are to run, and I think we ought to have a plain answer from the Parliamentary Secretary to-day indicating a time limit when the country will know what the Government are going to do to meet the demands of this great and growing and efficient service.

Sir Herbert Williams: I will be brief because I know the Minister will want to spread himself in the time remaining to us. The Debate has ranged over a wide field. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) that we want a plan, hut let us be a little reasonable. One day I am going to ask what is to be the taxpayers' plan. We are all demanding the impossible. Lots of these things we shall not see. We have had several "hates" expressed to-day. The hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey (Captain Gammans) hates bill-posting except for the display of his own election posters. I think we are apt to be insincere in these matters. We have an advertisement Regulation Act to deal with advertising abuses, and I dislike to see this trade or that being attacked because an amenities group is annoyed and begins to get busy.

Sir Irving Albery: May I ask whether the lion. Gentleman is aware that, before the war, the first thing foreigners saw in England was a beautiful English country road entirely ruined by advertisements all the way to London?

Sir H. Williams: But if he went to Paris he would see all the lavatories exhibiting posters with the words "Défense

d' afficher." You must not post bills, so you must use a poster to prohibit them. The road traffic people want to make themselves efficient, and to secure traffic, and the railways want to make themselves more efficient so that the roads cannot rob them of traffic. The hon. and gallant Member for Whitechapel (Mr. W. Edwards) wanted a guarantee from the Minister that sailors and dockers would be given a good time. The Minister cannot give that guarantee, and the shipowners cannot give that guarantee. Dockers and sailors can only be given a good time if there is plenty of trade. That is the one thing nobody seems to trouble about.
We have heard a good deal about waste of petrol. There is a bus which is known as No. 41. You will find it every morning outside Sudbury Hill Station, Middlesex. The people who travel by it, I am told, could walk the distance in 10 minutes. It takes up to 20 people. When lunch-time comes those people are taken back to the railway station, where some old railway trucks have been fitted up as a restaurant. The bus goes back again after lunch and takes the people to the station in the evening to go home. One man does four journeys a day and that is all he does. I think this petrol might be saved and given to the dogs in which the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) is so interested. I may say that I have only been to the dogs twice since the war, never to a racecourse, and, I think, only to three football matches. There is a certain amount of petrol consumed both by the management and also visitors to those places, but every form of amusement uses petrol. Actors and actresses are, properly, provided with petrol to take them home. Every form of amusement uses petrol. E.N.S.A. uses a great amount of petrol. I say "Live and let live." There is more petrol used in dropping people outside big stores in Oxford Street, than there is in taking people to the dogs. Are we to have an inquisition when anybody takes a taxi? If you are going to the dogs, you must not take a taxi, but if you are going to Peter Jones in Sloane Square you may. I hate all this heresy-hunting. We have had 10 minutes of Parliamentary time occupied talking about petrol, which amounts to about my two-hundred-thousandth part of our nor-mal consumption of petrol.
Then we had an eloquent speech from the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). I am not sure whether he spoke as a Liberal, a Socialist or a Conservative. I think it must have been a bit of all three. It was a very interesting speech, but I was not clear where he was trying to get. I do not think he was quite clear himself, except that he was not going to have everything nationalised and run by bureaucracy. He seemed to think that if a man sold vacuum cleaners that was the lowest form of human activity. He said "We must have fast ships." Well, I wonder. If you make ships fast enough, the only thing you will be able to carry will be fuel for their own consumption. People do not realise that the horse-power required rises in proportion to the cube of the speed. The "Queen Mary" was a perfectly lovely ship, if you wanted to traverse the Atlantic comfortably in four days, but it meant the consumption of a vast amount of fuel. Indeed, if you could only make ships fast enough, you would arrive at a time when they could not travel because they could not carry enough fuel. It is not necessarily wise to have fast ships.
The hon. Member and others wondered where the money was to come from to electrify railways. There is no difficulty in raising money for an enterprise that would be self-supporting. The Southern Railway Company have gone in for electrification more than any other company. Why is that? It is because the Southern Railway carries a high proportion of passenger traffic, and the supreme advantage of an electric motor is that it can use an enormous amount of power. A steam locomotive has a maximum Dower, but an electric train when starting, can draw from what is a practically limitless source of power at the generating station and temporarily generate a power in the train which is twice what is needed in running full speed. Consequently you get rapid acceleration and you can only get a fast train, with many stops, if you have rapid acceleration. That is the secret of the success of the electric train. Considerations in the case of goods traffic are entirely different. There would he incredible difficulty in shunting-yards and I would not like to be in a shunting-yard worked by electricity. You could not do it except by having steam shunting locomotives. People wave their arms vaguely

in the air and say "Let us electrify." That, is all that matters. They never really think of the problems. I was brought up as an electrical engineer, and am all in favour of it, but it is foolish to deceive people in regard to the technicalities.
Most of the day we have been wandering round all sorts of things, walking very near the edge of legislation. Fortunately the electrification of railways does not involve any legislation; a company can do it any time they like provided they have running rights. The hon. Member for Seaham wanted to provide for the electrification of railways and more and better lavatories, with which I am in sympathy, for while I think that on the Southern Railway the lavatories are quite good, there might be some improvement. Then he drifted on to the future of shipping in this country as compared with the United States. I should like to say a lot about that. Fortunately the United States do not build very big ships. I believe there is some reluctance on the part of the people of the United States to travel in their own ships, and the bulk of the troops come over to this country from the United States in our ships, which is rather a tribute. Hon. Members will remember after the last war the amazing failure of the attempt to nationalise shipping, both in the United States and Australia, so I am not really afraid that the United States are going to sweep the Union Jack off the seas. I think we shall still survive, but it is quite obvious that people should be treated reasonably, and shipowners must be left with resources for building. You cannot tax people to death and then expect them to provide employment for everyone.
This has been a very rambling Debate and I have only rambled for ten minutes. My time is up, but I wish the Parliamentary Secretary all good luck and I do hope he will try to explain away some of the references in this Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure. Though I am a member of the Select Committee, I was not a member of this sub-committee and I have no detailed responsibility, but there are some very grave charges. The hon. Gentleman explains away every letter I write to him on the subject, and I have written many, but I do not believe his explanations.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think this Debate has shown that it was desirable and right to discuss the Estimates of my Ministry, and I should like to express my gratitude to hon. Members for the things they have said and for the proposals which they have made. They have Covered a great variety of topics, and it is quite evident that I cannot cover them all. On a good many of them, fortunately, hon. Members have answered each other, so completely and so much to the satisfaction of their respective hon. Friends, that there is not much need for me to say more.
I want to deal, first, with a matter of great general and immediate interest raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Central Bristol (Lady Apsley). She asked if the civilian transport system would really be able to carry the essential traffic during the operations on the second front. I cannot promise no interruption, I cannot promise no stoppages of certain forms of transport at certain places, I cannot promise that there may not be drastic cuts for a certain period in many of the services we run now, but I do say that if, in certain places, the train services were cut off we would try to replace them by an omnibus service which would get all the essential workers to their jobs. I think I can say, broadly speaking, that the answer to her Question is that the essential services will go on.
I come from the general to the particular, and to particulars of many different kinds. I was asked why I have not paid a tribute to the Indian seamen. I gladly do it now. The Lascars have served us in tens of thousands with great heroism, and with great endurance and industry in our merchant ships. So have the seamen of our Chinese Allies, who have done extremely well. I have remembered that I did not pay any proper tribute to the men in our coasting vessels who, in great danger, up and down the coast have, with heavy losses and many casualties of a grievous kind, rendered magnificent service to the nation.
I pass from those particulars to the dog racing of which two of my hon. Friends have spoken. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) complained that we had destroyed the records. There are over 350,000 goods vehicles and, at the beginning, their fuel was issued weekly. If we had kept the records, we should have

had a mountain of paper in which we should never have found anything we wanted and which would have served no useful purpose to anyone. We kept it for over three months and then rightly used it in the service of the nation by sending it to salvage. On the substance of his question, ought we to give fuel for taking greyhounds from their kennels to the tracks, and that we ought to tell him how much fuel is used, I did say in an answer which I wrote out for Wednesday that I did not want to ask the staffs of the Regional Commissioners to do it at this moment when they are under a very heavy pressure of work.
I will try later on to give it if he likes, but let us try to make a calculation for ourselves. There are 16 tracks in London getting on an average about 10 gallons a week per track. There are 150 altogether in the country, only 60 belonging to the Association; the others I am told are very small. But let us assume that they all get ten gallons, and that in the Provinces the distance from the kennels to the tracks is as great as it must be around London. I do not believe it for a moment, but let us assume it. That makes just four tons of fuel a week, 200 per year, and a single tanker brings 12,500 tons. Now I think that gives the perspective of the thing. My hon. Friend will say, why should even less than one-sixtieth of one tanker journey be given to the racing of dogs? I do not think his complaint is really aimed at me. As a matter of fact I am not addicted to going to the dogs; I prefer less passive forms of sport; but very many people, I am assured, do find rest and relaxation in greyhound racing. In any case, the Government have decided, as a matter of general policy, that horse-racing and football and greyhound-racing should be allowed to go on and, if it is permitted, I venture to suggest that this fuel allocation is not really very much. Could we not move the kennels to the tracks? I am told that in a built-up area kennels may become a public nuisance—the greyhounds bark, and some people say they smell. In any case, if greyhound racing is to continue, I am afraid the position will have to remain as it is.
The hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) asked about the Railway Rebates Fund. Under a Statute passed by Parliament last year agriculture is getting the same in lowered rates as it


used to get before, the rest is used by the Ministry of Fuel to subsidise the cost of transporting coal by coaster or on long railway hauls, so that the cost of coal to the consumer shall not be raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) asked me about wider buses. If we could have wider buses it would be very useful here, the operators would like it, and so would the public, and it would, no doubt, help the export industry. There are difficulties, however, and he is as well aware of them as I am. The hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) also asked about this. The matter is under consideration, and more than that I cannot say now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) who, if I may say so, made many very interesting observations —in which I would like to follow him but I cannot—spoke about canteens for the railway workers, who have done so very well. There were some before the war. Since the war began we have actually finished the construction of 102; 100 more are under construction, 240 are planned, and we hope to complete them within the relatively early future. It has really been a question of labour and material at every turn; but for that we should have gone forward much faster, I was asked a similar question by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) about road hostels for lorry drivers. We have made great improvements in the food provided for lorry drivers in the inns by the wayside which they use. The Ministry of Food have helped us and the Ministry of Labour have enabled us to get the necessary help in the inns. On that, the evidence—corrobated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) who spoke about his daughter's experience—goes to show that the feeding is much better than it used to be. Accommodation is a different matter. I have been very much worried, as he was, by the question of accommodation. I saw his plans, not two years ago, but some time ago. We have given them very careful consideration. Actually, negotiations are still going on between my Noble Friend and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service about how we can deal with the proposal he put forward, and I am very hopeful that something may result.
The hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Bull) asked me about the rule of the road, and suggested that we should change from the left to the right. It is not many weeks since he put his original Question on this subject, and since then I have had consultations with the Board of Trade about the effect of such a change on our motor exports. Our consultations are not concluded, but they are bringing out the real merits that are involved in the question. We have had consultations with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, and with the A.A. and R.A.C. All these pundits were against a- change from left to right. We have had long discussions in the Road Safety Committee, over which I have the honour to preside. We have reached no final conclusion, but we are getting at the facts and merits of the case to enable my Noble Friend and the Government to make a decision in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham spoke about safety on the roads. I am very gravely disturbed by the casualties on the roads. They ought to be far less than they are in view of the great diminution of traffic which there has been. They will be far greater in the post-war period unless we can take effective action to bring them down. May I give some striking figures? Recently, I was asked a supplementary question by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville), who wanted to know whether it was true that casualties on the roads were actually greater than the casualties which had occurred on the fighting fronts. I looked up the figures. In deaths they are not. In the Forces, 140,000 men have been killed since the war began; on the roads 39,000 have been killed. But injuries may be worse than death, if a man is crippled for the rest of his life. Taking the total killed and wounded on the fighting fronts, as a result of all the efforts of Hitler's war machine, 370,000 have been killed and injured in the Forces, and on the roads 588,000 have been killed and injured since the war began. This is a very grave social problem. The Government have to deal with it, and they are determined that they will. The Road Safety Committee is giving a great deal of time to this question, and we are preparing an interim programme for action to be taken immediately after the war. We are reaching the stage at which our Report can be drafted, and as soon as


that is done we shall provide for longterm measures which my very competent colleagues judge to be required.
Now I come to the question of the Road Haulage Organisation, and I shall have to deal with it at much less length than I should have wished. I say by way of excuse that my Noble Friend intends to put in a written reply to the Report of the Select Committee, which will be available very soon, and which will deal with any points I cannot mention now. May I say that I greatly appreciated the tone of the speech made by the hon. Member for Stockport? We take no exception to criticism; we are grateful, because it helps us in our job. I would say to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) that I met the Divisional Road Haulage Officers who are running this scheme, and who are all men from the industry—I can give him a list of their names and firms —and they were unanimous in thanking me for my defence of the industry in a recent Debate. I know that my hon. Friend's Committee took a lot of evidence. He stated what it was—Questions in the House, criticisms in the Press, consultation with 12 or 14 hauliers, and so on.
I would like to say a word or two about some of the evidence. I will take as one example a Question put to me by an hon. Member not very long ago. He said that he knew a firm whose vehicles, before control, were running a perfect timetable of about 2,000 fully loaded miles per week with each vehicle that they used. When I quoted 2,000 miles a week to road hauliers they raised their eyebrows. These were heavy vehicles and if they averaged 17 miles per hour it means 20 hours running every day. I looked up the fuel issue which this firm was having before control, and I found that it would have permitted just about 1,000 miles a week. I think that some of the evidence which has been put forward has about as solid a basis of fact as that. I want to remind the Committee that our purpose in this organisation is not to make money for the Government—

Sir H. Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman put the evidence by a Select Committee of the time taken in the same category as the unsupported statement of an hon. Member asking a Question?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Not at all. (This question needs revision.)

Captain Strickland: Would the hon. Gentleman explain the difference in costs?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I will, although I will write to the hon. and gallant Member if he wishes. In the case of these potatoes it was urgent traffic, which we were told by the Ministry of Food they must have so that they could keep up supplies in London. If a commercial firm was asked to carry that, knowing that there was no possibility of a load on the return journey, they would have made a round-trip rate not less than ours, or more likely the potatoes would have waited or rotted and London would have gone without, or perhaps they would have taken a chance on rail. That is an illustration of what I am saying. We are not working this road haulage organisation in order co make a profit for the Government.

Captain Strickland: When the hon. Gentleman stated that the costs were the same as they were under private enterprise and quoted 17s. 6d. and 18s., how did he arrive at that in view of the proved costs that came out at £2 3s. 6d. a time?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think my hon. and gallant Friend is confusing two separate cases. In one case there were other loads which my hon. and gallant Friend left out of account, but in the other case in which potatoes had to be brought from Leicestershire, they were carried at a rate which was approximately the same as, or a little below, what would have been the commercial rate on a round-trip basis. In saying what I said I was strictly accurate, and if the hon. and gallant Member wishes I will write to him again, giving the fullest possible facts. As I was saying, it is not our purpose to make a profit from this organisation. We had to get urgent traffic through; we had to clear congestion; we had to use road haulage to the best advantage, not as an isolated system but as part of the transport system of the country as a whole. The Order of 14th February, which the hon. Member for Stockport read out, was not an admission of a defect in the working of the road haulage system; it was an instruction that we should use the road haulage to bring relief to the railways where, before, it had been judged that that relief was not required. It was because of increas-


ing pressure on the railways that that was done.
I would like to deal with the most important single point, namely, empty running. I said in our last discussion that I thought the Select Committee had been a little misled by the special cases, which were not put in their proper framework. I was discussing this matter with the head of a large firm the other day and he said that if his firm had desired to quote to the Select Committee their London traffic within a certain area they could have shown, quite legitimately, 97 per cent. loaded running in both directions. But if they took their operations over the country as a whole it was more like 60. Of course, you could find 90 per cent. cases. I had one sent to me by a man working under the organisation who showed me by his figures that he was having more than 90 per cent. loaded running. A big firm sent me the details of their work on many routes which were nearly 90.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Coventry asked me about the running between two towns, how many vehicles ran during a certain week, and what was the empty mileage? It turned out that they were 99 per cent. loaded. I do not claim that as a merit for the organisation. It was a chance that the traffic happened to be balanced. Broadly speaking, it is not balanced and, when the hauliers came to us to negotiate a hiring rate for their vehicles, they said, "Let us start from present day conditions and let us allow 75 per cent. loaded running as a basis." Perhaps that is a little low. I think that with good working it would be 8o to 85. We lave made tests, and we made them during the very months on which the hon. and gallant Gentleman's evidence was based—December and January last. In December we took a check of the work of 54 units, one in each area in the country. It gave us an overall result of 81 per cent. of loaded running. We thought it was too good to be true. We made three other checks in January. The first gave 81 again and the second gave 82. The third was, to my mind, much the most striking. It was for an area where, by the nature of the case, back-loads were rare, yet even there the figure was 72. That area, like all those in the same category, had been. included in our overall December test,

which gave us 81. I think these figures show that, as. far as empty running is a test—and up to a point it is—this organisation, which has not had long to run itself in—I wish it had been set up much sooner —is doing very well.
I end by quoting an outside authority, Mr. J. A. Dunnage, who used to be the national secretary of the Industrial Transport Association and who is described by an American scientific review for which he wrote this article as the author of standard books on transport. Discussing the evidence about empty running and the inefficiency of the organisation, before my hon. Friend's Committee's Report had been published, he wrote:
My own view is that these scattered opinions are valueless. Balanced loading into and out of each town is clearly impossible. Failing it, there will always be a proportion of vehicles that must work light from discharging to loading points.
I think that is really a decisive quotation; that is the essence of the case.
I pass on to general planning for the future. What are we doing? A number of hon. Members have asked about trunk roads and motor-ways. On trunk roads, we are doing what the hon. Member for Hulme hoped we would do—arranging to take over a much greater mileage as trunk roads for which my Noble Friend will be responsible himself. We are getting on very satisfactorily in our negotiations with local highway authorities about the roads which shall be so taken over. As at present advised, we intend to go on using the highway authorities as agents for the work of construction, maintenance and repair. I do not say that that is an inflexible, unbreakable rule, but that is, broadly speaking, the present intention. As to motor-ways, I fully agree that the county surveyors' scheme was a very able piece of work. No one thinks we can do it all at once. I agree that, when we have a certain area where there are already some by-passes and we have plans for many more, it may be better to abandon what we call in the Ministry the "gumboil" system and make a new road instead.
We intend to make motor-ways. The Government, by a statement which I made some time ago, are committed to the princple of motor-ways in times to come. I said we were going to make suitable lengths. That phrase excited contempt and derision in some quarters.
I did not know why. Surely, it was not expected that we should make unsuitable lengths. A suitable length means one which will enable us to judge whether these motor-ways fulfil the purposes for which they are constructed, will really absorb the traffic and make it faster and save waste and prevent accidents. When we have proved by suitable lengths that the motor-ways will do that we shall construct more, and each that we construct will be intended to be part of a general plan which will cover the country as a whole.
I come to shipping. The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) was very pessimistic. I should not agree with him that we shall have only 9,000,000 tons at the end of the war. I should not be surprised if we had a lot more. We do not want fast ships only. We are building fast ships; a third of all that we are building are fast. The big problems of the future are being considered, and in the meantime we are determined to give the officers and men in the Merchant Navy conditions as good as those of any other Merchant Navy in the world and as good as we can make them.
An hon. Member spoke of electrification of the railways. Detailed plans for the electrification of many miles of suburban and main line railways have been or are being prepared. How far we can go, and how soon, depends on many things, in part on the major considerations which have been mentioned. On canals we are engaged on an intensive study of what is the minimum economic unit for a water-borne carrier, the 26 tons which the narrow boat carries, or 5o, 70 or 100; to give a decent life to the worker; a decent return on the investment; and a real service to the nation as a whole. I hope we shall soon have a solid technical basis on which to erect a policy about inland waterways.
Scientific research has been referred to. Aviation has shown what can be done by applied research. I believe there is no section of the whole of the transport system where a large dose of scientific research is not urgently required. Hon. Members wished I could tell them that a master plan for the organisation of national transport is being set forth in legislative or memorandum form. I wish I could tell them so too. But they will realise that long and careful technical

study of each individual form of transport is required before we can begin to consider a general plan. We are a fighting Ministry. My Noble Friend's preoccupations are very heavy, and when the war is over we shall have a considerable period before control will end. But we can, I hope, look forward to a time when we can present a White Paper to Parliament saying what we are going to do.

Ordered:
That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain McEwen.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (CLOCKS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

Sir Herbert Williams: Just for one moment I should like to call attention to the fact that there was a contretemps on Wednesday last, when, owing to the fact that we had three clocks in this Chamber which do not all keep the same time, a certain Motion that the Government desired to pass, was not passed. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to have clocks here that synchronise. I have lots of clocks at home, and they all tell the same time, and if they are wrong they are, at any rate, all wrong to the same degree. I suggest that we should have clocks here which really tell the same time. Then we should know where we were. It is rather disturbing to Parliamentary Business if the clocks do not tell the same time.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I should like to express my surprise at hearing an individualist like the hon. Member who has just spoken argue in favour of uniformity. In every other field of life he argues for non-conformity, for the protection of individuality and for the widest diversity in life. Now, even he has to admit that diversity is not enough. He wants dull, mechanical uniformity in our clocks. I deprecate his observations.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly till Tuesday next, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.